Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

   104th Congress 1st 
         Session        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        Report
                                                       104-112
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                           AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                                   on

                                H.R. 961

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]




  May 3, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
   104th Congress 1st   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        Report
         Session
                                                       104-112
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                           AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                                   on

                                H.R. 961


                             together with


                     ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]




  May 3, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-112
_______________________________________________________________________


                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

_______________________________________________________________________


  May 3, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

             ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 961]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The amendment....................................................     3
Purpose and summary..............................................    86
Need for legislation.............................................    87
    Unfunded mandates............................................    87
    Nonpoint source discharges...................................    88
    Stormwater...................................................    89
    Flexibility and increased State role.........................    93
    Small communities............................................    94
    Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis....................    95
    Sound science................................................    97
    Wetlands.....................................................    97
    Navigational dredging........................................    98
Discussion of the Committee bill (H.R. 961) and section-by-
  section analysis...............................................    98
    Title I: Research and Related Programs.......................    98
        Section 101. National goals and policies.................    98
        Section 102. Research, investigations, training and 
          information............................................   100
        Section 103. State management assistance.................   102
        Section 104. Mine water pollution control................   102
        Section 105. Water sanitation in rural and native Alaska 
          villages...............................................   102
        Section 106. Authorization of appropriations for 
          Chesapeake program.....................................   102
        Section 107. Great Lakes management......................   102
    Title II: Construction Grants................................   105
        Section 201. Uses of funds...............................   105
        Section 202. Administration of closeout of construction 
          grant program..........................................   105
        Section 203. Sewage collection systems...................   105
        Section 204. Treatment works defined.....................   105
        Section 205. Value engineering review....................   105
        Section 206. Grants for wastewater treatment.............   105
    Title III: Standards and Enforcement.........................   106
        Section 301. Effluent limitations........................   106
        Section 302. Pollution prevention opportunities..........   107
        Section 303. Water quality standards and implementation 
          plans..................................................   111
        Section 304. Use of biological monitoring................   112
        Section 305. Arid areas..................................   114
        Section 306. Total maximum daily loads...................   115
        Section 307. Revision of criteria, standards, and 
          limitations............................................   115
        Section 308. Information and guidelines..................   117
        Section 309. Secondary treatment.........................   117
        Section 310. Toxic pollutants............................   119
        Section 311. Local pretreatment authority................   120
        Section 312. Compliance with management practices........   121
        Section 313. Federal enforcement.........................   122
        Section 314. Response plans for discharges of oil or 
          hazardous substances...................................   122
        Section 315. Marine sanitation devices...................   123
        Section 316. Federal facilities..........................   123
        Section 317. Clean lakes.................................   124
        Section 318. Cooling water intake structures.............   124
        Section 319. Nonpoint source management programs.........   124
        Section 320. National estuary program....................   128
        Section 321. State watershed management programs.........   128
        Section 322. Stormwater management programs..............   131
        Section 323. Risk assessment and disclosure requirements.   143
        Section 324. Benefit and cost criterion..................   147
    Title IV: Permits and Licenses...............................   152
        Section 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated 
          animal feeding operations..............................   152
        Section 402. Permit reform...............................   153
        Section 403. Review of state programs and permits........   153
        Section 404. Statistical noncompliance...................   154
        Section 405. Anti-backsliding requirements...............   154
        Section 406. Intake credits..............................   155
        Section 407. Combined sewer overflows....................   155
        Section 408. Sanitary sewer overflows....................   155
        Section 409. Abandoned mines.............................   156
        Section 410. Beneficial use of biosolids.................   156
        Section 411. Waste treatment systems defined.............   157
        Section 412. Thermal discharges..........................   159
    Title V: General Provisions..................................   159
        Section 501. Consultation with States....................   159
        Section 502. Navigable waters defined....................   160
        Section 503. CAFO definition clarification...............   160
        Section 504. Publicly owned treatment work defined.......   160
        Section 505. State water quantity rights.................   160
        Section 506. Implementation of water pollution laws with 
          respect to vegetable oil...............................   161
        Section 507. Needs estimate..............................   162
        Section 508. General program authorizations..............   162
        Section 509. Indian tribes...............................   162
        Section 510. Food processing and food safety.............   163
        Section 511. Audit dispute resolution....................   163
    Title VI: State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds......   163
        Section 601. General authority for capitalization grants.   163
        Section 602. Capitalization grant agreements.............   164
        Section 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds   164
        Section 604. Allotment of funds..........................   165
        Section 605. Authorization of appropriations.............   167
        Section 606. State nonpoint source water pollution 
          control revolving funds................................   169
    Title VII: Miscellaneous Provisions..........................   170
        Section 701. Technical amendments........................   170
        Section 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality 
          Research Laboratory....................................   170
        Section 703. Wastewater service for Colonias.............   170
        Section 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs...   170
    Title VIII: Wetlands Conservation and Management.............   170
    Title IX: Navigational Dredging..............................   182
Miscellaneous issues.............................................   183
Hearings and previous legislative activity.......................   184
Committee consideration..........................................   187
Committee oversight findings.....................................   200
Oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee on 
  Government Reform and Oversight................................   200
Committee cost estimate..........................................   200
Congressional Budget Office estimates............................   201
Inflationary impact statement....................................   209
Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported............   209
Additional, supplemental and dissenting views....................
Exchange of letters..............................................   433
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Water 
Amendments of 1995''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition.
Sec. 3. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. National goals and policies.
Sec. 102. Research, investigations, training, and information.
Sec. 103. State management assistance.
Sec. 104. Mine water pollution control.
Sec. 105. Water sanitation in rural and Native Alaska villages.
Sec. 106. Authorization of appropriations for Chesapeake program.
Sec. 107. Great lakes management.

                     TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

Sec. 201. Uses of funds.
Sec. 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program.
Sec. 203. Sewage collection systems.
Sec. 204. Treatment works defined.
Sec. 205. Value engineering review.
Sec. 206. Grants for wastewater treatment.

                  TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Effluent limitations.
Sec. 302. Pollution prevention opportunities.
Sec. 303. Water quality standards and implementation plans.
Sec. 304. Use of biological monitoring.
Sec. 305. Arid areas.
Sec. 306. Total maximum daily loads.
Sec. 307. Revision of criteria, standards, and limitations.
Sec. 308. Information and guidelines.
Sec. 309. Secondary treatment.
Sec. 310. Toxic pollutants.
Sec. 311. Local pretreatment authority.
Sec. 312. Compliance with management practices.
Sec. 313. Federal enforcement.
Sec. 314. Response plans for discharges of oil or hazardous substances.
Sec. 315. Marine sanitation devices.
Sec. 316. Federal facilities.
Sec. 317. Clean lakes.
Sec. 318. Cooling water intake structures.
Sec. 319. Nonpoint source management programs.
Sec. 320. National estuary program.
Sec. 321. State watershed management programs.
Sec. 322. Stormwater management programs.
Sec. 323. Risk assessment and disclosure requirements.
Sec. 324. Benefit and cost criterion.

                     TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES

Sec. 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding 
operations.
Sec. 402. Permit reform.
Sec. 403. Review of State programs and permits.
Sec. 404. Statistical noncompliance.
Sec. 405. Anti-backsliding requirements.
Sec. 406. Intake credits.
Sec. 407. Combined sewer overflows.
Sec. 408. Sanitary sewer overflows.
Sec. 409. Abandoned mines.
Sec. 410. Beneficial use of biosolids.
Sec. 411. Waste treatment systems defined.
Sec. 412. Thermal discharges.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Consultation with States.
Sec. 502. Navigable waters defined.
Sec. 503. CAFO definition clarification.
Sec. 504. Publicly owned treatment works defined.
Sec. 505. State water quantity rights.
Sec. 506. Implementation of water pollution laws with respect to 
vegetable oil.
Sec. 507. Needs estimate.
Sec. 508. General program authorizations.
Sec. 509. Indian tribes.
Sec. 510. Food processing and food safety.
Sec. 511. Audit dispute resolution.

        TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

Sec. 601. General authority for capitalization grants.
Sec. 602. Capitalization grant agreements.
Sec. 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds.
Sec. 604. Allotment of funds.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 606. State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving 
funds.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Technical amendments.
Sec. 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research 
Laboratory.
Sec. 703. Wastewater service for colonias.
Sec. 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs.

            TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings and statement of purpose.
Sec. 803. Wetlands conservation and management.
Sec. 804. Definitions.
Sec. 805. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 806. Effective date.

                    TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

Sec. 901. References to act.
Sec. 902. Ocean dumping permits.
Sec. 903. Dredged material permits.
Sec. 904. Permit conditions.
Sec. 905. Special provisions regarding certain dumping sites.
Sec. 906. References to Administrator.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

  In this Act, the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.

  Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to 
be made to a section or other provision of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).

                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

SEC. 101. NATIONAL GOALS AND POLICIES.

  (a) Nonpoint Source Pollution; State Strategies.--Section 101(a) (33 
U.S.C. 1251(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
          (2) in paragraph (7)--
                  (A) by inserting ``, including public and private 
                sector programs using economic incentives,'' after 
                ``programs'';
                  (B) by inserting ``, including stormwater,'' after 
                ``nonpoint sources of pollution'' the first place it 
                appears; and
                  (C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
                semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(8) it is the national policy to support State efforts 
        undertaken in consultation with tribal and local governments to 
        identify, prioritize, and implement water pollution prevention 
        and control strategies;''.
  (b) Role of State, Tribal, and Local Governments.--Section 101(a) is 
further amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(9) it is the national policy to recognize, support, and 
        enhance the role of State, tribal, and local governments in 
        carrying out the provisions of this Act;''.
  (c) Reclamation and Reuse.--
          (1) Reclamation.--Section 101(a)(4) is amended by inserting 
        after ``works'' the following: ``and to reclaim waste water 
        from municipal and industrial sources''.
          (2) Beneficial reuse.--Section 101(a) is further amended by 
        adding at the end the following:
          ``(10) it is the national policy that beneficial reuse of 
        waste water effluent and biosolids be encouraged to the fullest 
        extent possible; and''.
  (d) Water Use Efficiency.--Section 101(a) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
          ``(11) it is the national policy that water use efficiency be 
        encouraged to the fullest extent possible.''.
  (e) Net Benefits.--Section 101 is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:
  ``(h) Net Benefits.--It is the national policy that the development 
and implementation of water quality protection programs pursuant to 
this Act--
          ``(1) be based on scientifically objective and unbiased 
        information concerning the nature and magnitude of risk; and
          ``(2) maximize net benefits to society in order to promote 
        sound regulatory decisions and promote the rational and 
        coherent allocation of society's limited resources.''.

SEC. 102. RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION.

  (a) National Programs.--Section 104(a) (33 U.S.C. 1254(a)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(7) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and 
        local agencies, conduct, promote, and encourage to the maximum 
        extent feasible, in watersheds that may be significantly 
        affected by nonpoint sources of pollution, monitoring and 
        measurement of water quality by means and methods that will 
        help to identify the relative contributions of particular 
        nonpoint sources.''.
  (b) Grants to Local Governments.--Section 104(b)(3) (33 U.S.C. 
1254(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``local governments,'' after 
``interstate agencies,''.
  (c) Technical Assistance for Rural and Small Treatment Works.--
Section 104(b) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
          ``(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide 
        technical assistance and training to rural and small publicly 
        owned treatment works to enable such treatment works to achieve 
        and maintain compliance with the requirements of this Act; and
          ``(9) disseminate information to rural, small, and 
        disadvantaged communities with respect to the planning, design, 
        construction, and operation of treatment works.''.
  (d) Wastewater Treatment in Impoverished Communities.--Section 104(q) 
(33 U.S.C. 1254(q)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Small impoverished communities.--
                  ``(A) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants to 
                States to provide assistance for planning, design, and 
                construction of publicly owned treatment works to 
                provide wastewater services to rural communities of 
                3,000 or less that are not currently served by any 
                sewage collection or water treatment system and are 
                severely economically disadvantaged, as determined by 
                the Administrator.
                  ``(B) Authorization.--There is authorized to be 
                appropriated to carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 
                per fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 104(u) (33 U.S.C. 
1254(u)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' before ``(6)''; and
          (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
        ``; and (7) not to exceed $50,000,000 per fiscal year for each 
        of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for carrying out the 
        provisions of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8), and (b)(9), except 
        that not less than 20 percent of the sums appropriated pursuant 
        to this clause shall be available for carrying out the 
        provisions of subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9)''.

SEC. 103. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

  Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$75,000,000'';
          (2) by inserting after ``1990'' the following: ``, such sums 
        as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1991 through 1995, 
        and $150,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 
        through 2000''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following: ``States or 
        interstate agencies receiving grants under this section may use 
        such funds to finance, with other States or interstate 
        agencies, studies and projects on interstate issues relating to 
        such programs.''.

SEC. 104. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

  Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 107. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

  ``(a) Acidic and Other Toxic Mine Drainage.--The Administrator shall 
establish a program to demonstrate the efficacy of measures for 
abatement of the causes and treatment of the effects of acidic and 
other toxic mine drainage within qualified hydrologic units affected by 
past coal mining practices for the purpose of restoring the biological 
integrity of waters within such units.
  ``(b) Grants.--
          ``(1) In general.--Any State or Indian tribe may apply to the 
        Administrator for a grant for any project which provides for 
        abatement of the causes or treatment of the effects of acidic 
        or other toxic mine drainage within a qualified hydrologic unit 
        affected by past coal mining practices.
          ``(2) Application requirements.--An application submitted to 
        the Administrator under this section shall include each of the 
        following:
                  ``(A) An identification of the qualified hydrologic 
                unit.
                  ``(B) A description of the extent to which acidic or 
                other toxic mine drainage is affecting the water 
                quality and biological resources within the hydrologic 
                unit.
                  ``(C) An identification of the sources of acidic or 
                other toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.
                  ``(D) An identification of the project and the 
                measures proposed to be undertaken to abate the causes 
                or treat the effects of acidic or other toxic mine 
                drainage within the hydrologic unit.
                  ``(E) The cost of undertaking the proposed abatement 
                or treatment measures.
  ``(c) Federal Share.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
        receiving grant assistance under this section shall be 50 
        percent.
          ``(2) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--Contributions of 
        lands, easements, and rights-of-way shall be credited toward 
        the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this 
        section but not in an amount exceeding 25 percent of the total 
        project cost.
          ``(3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interest 
        shall bear 100 percent of the cost of operation and maintenance 
        of a project under this section.
  ``(d) Prohibited Projects.--No acidic or other toxic mine drainage 
abatement or treatment project may receive assistance under this 
section if the project would adversely affect the free-flowing 
characteristics of any river segment within a qualified hydrologic 
unit.
  ``(e) Applications From Federal Entities.--Any Federal entity may 
apply to the Administrator for a grant under this section for the 
purposes of an acidic or toxic mine drainage abatement or treatment 
project within a qualified hydrologic unit located on lands and waters 
under the administrative jurisdiction of such entity.
  ``(f) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve an application 
submitted pursuant to subsection (b) or (e) after determining that the 
application meets the requirements of this section.
  ``(g) Qualified Hydrologic Unit Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term `qualified hydrologic unit' means a hydrologic unit--
          ``(1) in which the water quality has been significantly 
        affected by acidic or other toxic mine drainage from past coal 
        mining practices in a manner which adversely impacts biological 
        resources; and
          ``(2) which contains lands and waters eligible for assistance 
        under title IV of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 
        1977.''.

SEC. 105. WATER SANITATION IN RURAL AND NATIVE ALASKA VILLAGES.

  (a) In General.--Section 113 (33 U.S.C. 1263) is amended by striking 
the section heading and designation and subsections (a) through (f) and 
inserting the following:

``SEC. 113. ALASKA VILLAGE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

  ``(a) Grants.--The Administrator is authorized to make grants--
          ``(1) for the development and construction of facilities 
        which provide sanitation services for rural and Native Alaska 
        villages;
          ``(2) for training, technical assistance, and educational 
        programs relating to operation and maintenance for sanitation 
        services in rural and Native Alaska villages; and
          ``(3) for reasonable costs of administering and managing 
        grants made and programs and projects carried out under this 
        section; except that not to exceed 4 percent of the amount of 
        any grant made under this section may be made for such costs.
  ``(b) Federal Share.--A grant under this section shall be 50 percent 
of the cost of the program or project being carried out with such 
grant.
  ``(c) Special Rule.--The Administrator shall award grants under this 
section for project construction following the rules specified in 
subpart H of part 1942 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
  ``(d) Grants to State for Benefit of Villages.--Grants under this 
section may be made to the State for the benefit of rural Alaska 
villages and Alaska Native villages.
  ``(e) Coordination.--In carrying out activities under this 
subsection, the Administrator is directed to coordinate efforts between 
the State of Alaska, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the 
Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the recipients of grants.
  ``(f) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 
for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1995, to carry out this 
section.''.
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 113(g) is amended by inserting 
after ``(g)'' the following: ``Definitions.--''.

SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CHESAPEAKE PROGRAM.

  Section 117(d) (33 U.S.C. 1267(d)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``such sums as may be 
        necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $3,000,000 
        per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' 
        after ``1990,''; and
          (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``such sums as may be 
        necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $18,000,000 
        per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' 
        after ``1990,''.

SEC. 107. GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT.

  (a) Great Lakes Research Council.--
          (1) In general.--Section 118 (33 U.S.C. 1268) is amended--
                  (A) in subsection (a)(3)--
                          (i) by striking subparagraph (E) and 
                        inserting the following:
                  ``(E) `Council' means the Great Lakes Research 
                Council established by subsection (d)(1);'';
                          (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of 
                        subparagraph (I);
                          (iii) by striking the period at the end of 
                        subparagraph (J) and inserting ``; and''; and
                          (iv) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(K) `Great Lakes research' means the application of 
                scientific or engineering expertise to explain, 
                understand, and predict a physical, chemical, 
                biological, or socioeconomic process, or the 
                interaction of 1 or more of the processes, in the Great 
                Lakes ecosystem.'';
                  (B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the 
                following:
  ``(d) Great Lakes Research Council.--
          ``(1) Establishment of council.--There is established a Great 
        Lakes Research Council.
          ``(2) Duties of council.--The Council--
                  ``(A) shall advise and promote the coordination of 
                Federal Great Lakes research activities to avoid 
                unnecessary duplication and ensure greater 
                effectiveness in achieving protection of the Great 
                Lakes ecosystem through the goals of the Great Lakes 
                Water Quality Agreement;
                  ``(B) not later than 1 year after the date of the 
                enactment of this subparagraph and biennially 
                thereafter and after providing opportunity for public 
                review and comment, shall prepare and provide to 
                interested parties a document that includes--
                          ``(i) an assessment of the Great Lakes 
                        research activities needed to fulfill the goals 
                        of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
                          ``(ii) an assessment of Federal expertise and 
                        capabilities in the activities needed to 
                        fulfill the goals of the Great Lakes Water 
                        Quality Agreement, including an inventory of 
                        Federal Great Lakes research programs, 
                        projects, facilities, and personnel; and
                          ``(iii) recommendations for long-term and 
                        short-term priorities for Federal Great Lakes 
                        research, based on a comparison of the 
                        assessments conducted under clauses (i) and 
                        (ii);
                  ``(C) shall identify topics for and participate in 
                meetings, workshops, symposia, and conferences on Great 
                Lakes research issues;
                  ``(D) shall make recommendations for the uniform 
                collection of data for enhancing Great Lakes research 
                and management protocols relating to the Great Lakes 
                ecosystem;
                  ``(E) shall advise and cooperate in--
                          ``(i) improving the compatible integration of 
                        multimedia data concerning the Great Lakes 
                        ecosystem; and
                          ``(ii) any effort to establish a 
                        comprehensive multimedia data base for the 
                        Great Lakes ecosystem; and
                  ``(F) shall ensure that the results, findings, and 
                information regarding Great Lakes research programs 
                conducted or sponsored by the Federal Government are 
                disseminated in a timely manner, and in useful forms, 
                to interested persons, using to the maximum extent 
                practicable mechanisms in existence on the date of the 
                dissemination, such as the Great Lakes Research 
                Inventory prepared by the International Joint 
                Commission.
          ``(3) Membership.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Council shall consist of 1 
                research manager with extensive knowledge of, and 
                scientific expertise and experience in, the Great Lakes 
                ecosystem from each of the following agencies and 
                instrumentalities:
                          ``(i) The Agency.
                          ``(ii) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
                        Administration.
                          ``(iii) The National Biological Service.
                          ``(iv) The United States Fish and Wildlife 
                        Service.
                          ``(v) Any other Federal agency or 
                        instrumentality that expends $1,000,000 or more 
                        for a fiscal year on Great Lakes research.
                          ``(vi) Any other Federal agency or 
                        instrumentality that a majority of the Council 
                        membership determines should be represented on 
                        the Council.
                  ``(B) Nonvoting members.--At the request of a 
                majority of the Council membership, any person who is a 
                representative of a Federal agency or instrumentality 
                not described in subparagraph (A) or any person who is 
                not a Federal employee may serve as a nonvoting member 
                of the Council.
          ``(4) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the Council shall be a 
        member of the Council from an agency specified in clause (i), 
        (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (3)(A) who is elected by a majority 
        vote of the members of the Council. The chairperson shall serve 
        as chairperson for a period of 2 years. A member of the Council 
        may not serve as chairperson for more than 2 consecutive terms.
          ``(5) Expenses.--While performing official duties as a member 
        of the Council, a member shall be allowed travel or 
        transportation expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
          ``(6) Interagency cooperation.--The head of each Federal 
        agency or instrumentality that is represented on the Council--
                  ``(A) shall cooperate with the Council in 
                implementing the recommendations developed under 
                paragraph (2);
                  ``(B) on written request of the chairperson of the 
                Council, may make available, on a reimbursable basis or 
                otherwise, such personnel, services, or facilities as 
                may be necessary to assist the Council in carrying out 
                the duties of the Council under this section; and
                  ``(C) on written request of the chairperson, shall 
                furnish data or information necessary to carry out the 
                duties of the Council under this section.
          ``(7) International cooperation.--The Council shall 
        cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the research 
        coordination efforts of the Council of Great Lakes Research 
        Managers of the International Joint Commission.
          ``(8) Reimbursement for requested activities.--Each Federal 
        agency or instrumentality represented on the Council may 
        reimburse another Federal agency or instrumentality or a non-
        Federal entity for costs associated with activities authorized 
        under this subsection that are carried out by the other agency, 
        instrumentality, or entity at the request of the Council.
          ``(9) Federal advisory committee act.--The Federal Advisory 
        Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Council.
          ``(10) Effect on other law.--Nothing in this subsection 
        affects the authority of any Federal agency or instrumentality, 
        under any law, to undertake Great Lakes research activities.'';
                  (C) in subsection (e)--
                          (i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``the 
                        Program Office and the Research Office shall 
                        prepare a joint research plan'' and inserting 
                        ``the Program Office, in consultation with the 
                        Council, shall prepare a research plan''; and
                          (ii) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``the 
                        Research Office, the Agency for Toxic 
                        Substances and Disease Registry, and Great 
                        Lakes States'' and inserting ``the Council, the 
                        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
                        Registry, and Great Lakes States,''; and
                  (D) in subsection (h)--
                          (i) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
                        (1);
                          (ii) by striking ``; and'' at the end of 
                        paragraph (2) and inserting a period; and
                          (iii) by striking paragraph (3).
          (2) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section 
        403(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 
        of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1447b(a)) is amended by striking ``Great 
        Lakes Research Office authorized under'' and inserting ``Great 
        Lakes Research Council established by''.
  (b) Consistency of Programs With Federal Guidance.--Section 
118(c)(2)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following: ``For purposes of this section, a State's standards, 
policies, and procedures shall be considered consistent with such 
guidance if the standards, policies, and procedures are based on 
scientifically defensible judgments and policy choices made by the 
State after consideration of the guidance and provide an overall level 
of protection comparable to that provided by the guidance, taking into 
account the specific circumstances of the State's waters.''.
  (c) Reauthorization of Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated 
Sediments Program.--Section 118(c)(7) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
                  ``(D) Reauthorization of assessment and remediation 
                of contaminated sediments program.--
                          ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting 
                        through the Program Office, in consultation and 
                        cooperation with the Assistant Secretary of the 
                        Army having responsibility for civil works, 
                        shall conduct at least 3 pilot projects 
                        involving promising technologies and practices 
                        to remedy contaminated sediments (including at 
                        least 1 full-scale demonstration of a 
                        remediation technology) at sites in the Great 
                        Lakes System, as the Administrator determines 
                        appropriate.
                          ``(ii) Selection of sites.--In selecting 
                        sites for the pilot projects, the Administrator 
                        shall give priority consideration to--
                                  ``(I) the Ashtabula River in Ohio;
                                  ``(II) the Buffalo River in New York;
                                  ``(III) Duluth and Superior Harbor in 
                                Minnesota;
                                  ``(IV) the Fox River in Wisconsin;
                                  ``(V) the Grand Calumet River in 
                                Indiana; and
                                  ``(VI) Saginaw Bay in Michigan.
                          ``(iii) Deadlines.--In carrying out this 
                        subparagraph, the Administrator shall--
                                  ``(I) not later than 18 months after 
                                the date of the enactment of this 
                                subparagraph, identify at least 3 sites 
                                and the technologies and practices to 
                                be demonstrated at the sites (including 
                                at least 1 full-scale demonstration of 
                                a remediation technology); and
                                  ``(II) not later than 5 years after 
                                such date of enactment, complete at 
                                least 3 pilot projects (including at 
                                least 1 full-scale demonstration of a 
                                remediation technology).
                          ``(iv) Additional projects.--The 
                        Administrator, acting through the Program 
                        Office, in consultation and cooperation with 
                        the Assistant Secretary of the Army having 
                        responsibility for civil works, may conduct 
                        additional pilot- and full-scale pilot projects 
                        involving promising technologies and practices 
                        at sites in the Great Lakes System other than 
                        the sites selected under clause (i).
                          ``(v) Execution of projects.--The 
                        Administrator may cooperate with the Assistant 
                        Secretary of the Army having responsibility for 
                        civil works to plan, engineer, design, and 
                        execute pilot projects under this subparagraph.
                          ``(vi) Non-federal contributions.--The 
                        Administrator may accept non-Federal 
                        contributions to carry out pilot projects under 
                        this subparagraph.
                          ``(vii) Authorization of appropriations.--
                        There are authorized to be appropriated to 
                        carry out this subparagraph $3,500,000 for each 
                        of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
                  ``(E) Technical information and assistance.--
                          ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting 
                        through the Program Office, may provide 
                        technical information and assistance involving 
                        technologies and practices for remediation of 
                        contaminated sediments to persons that request 
                        the information or assistance.
                          ``(ii) Technical assistance priorities.--In 
                        providing technical assistance under this 
                        subparagraph, the Administrator, acting through 
                        the Program Office, shall give special priority 
                        to requests for integrated assessments of, and 
                        recommendations regarding, remediation 
                        technologies and practices for contaminated 
                        sediments at Great Lakes areas of concern.
                          ``(iii) Coordination with other 
                        demonstrations.--The Administrator shall--
                                  ``(I) coordinate technology 
                                demonstrations conducted under this 
                                subparagraph with other federally 
                                assisted demonstrations of contaminated 
                                sediment remediation technologies; and
                                  ``(II) share information from the 
                                demonstrations conducted under this 
                                subparagraph with the other 
                                demonstrations.
                          ``(iv) Other sediment remediation 
                        activities.--Nothing in this subparagraph 
                        limits the authority of the Administrator to 
                        carry out sediment remediation activities under 
                        other laws.
                          ``(v) Authorization of appropriations.--There 
                        are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
                        this subparagraph $1,000,000 for each of fiscal 
                        years 1996 through 2000.''.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) Research and management.--Section 118(e)(3)(B) (33 U.S.C. 
        1268(e)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
        end the following: ``, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
        year 1995, and $4,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal 
        years 1996, 1997, and 1998''.
          (2) Great lakes programs.--Section 118(h) (33 U.S.C. 1268(h)) 
        is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``and'' before ``$25,000,000''; and
                  (B) by inserting before the period at the end of the 
                first sentence the following: ``, such sums as may be 
                necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and 
                $17,500,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 
                1996 through 2000''.

                     TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

SEC. 201. USES OF FUNDS.

  (a) Nonpoint Source Program.--Section 201(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
1281(g)(1)) is amended by striking the period at the end of the first 
sentence and all that follows through the period at the end of the last 
sentence and inserting the following: ``and for any purpose for which a 
grant may be made under sections 319(h) and 319(i) of this Act 
(including any innovative and alternative approaches for the control of 
nonpoint sources of pollution).''.
  (b) Retroactive Eligibility.--Section 201(g)(1) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator, with the 
concurrence of the States, shall develop procedures to facilitate and 
expedite the retroactive eligibility and provision of grant funding for 
facilities already under construction.''.

SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION OF CLOSEOUT OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM.

  Section 205(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1285(g)(1)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following: ``The Administrator may negotiate an annual budget 
with a State for the purpose of administering the closeout of the 
State's construction grants program under this title. Sums made 
available for administering such closeout shall be subtracted from 
amounts remaining available for obligation under the State's 
construction grant program under this title.''.

SEC. 203. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

  Section 211(a) (33 U.S.C. 1291(a)) is amended--
          (1) in clause (1) by striking ``an existing collection 
        system'' and inserting ``a collection system existing on the 
        date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995''; 
        and
          (2) in clause (2)--
                  (A) by striking ``an existing community'' and 
                inserting ``a community existing on such date of 
                enactment''; and
                  (B) by striking ``sufficient existing'' and inserting 
                ``sufficient capacity existing on such date of 
                enactment''.

SEC. 204. TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

  (a) Inclusion of Other Lands.--Section 212(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 
1292(2)(A)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``any works, including site'';
          (2) by striking ``is used for ultimate'' and inserting ``will 
        be used for ultimate''; and
          (3) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
        ``and acquisition of other lands, and interests in lands, which 
        are necessary for construction''.
  (b) Policy on Cost Effectiveness.--Section 218(a) (33 U.S.C. 1298(a)) 
is amended by striking ``combination of devices and systems'' and all 
that follows through ``from such treatment;'' and inserting ``treatment 
works;''.

SEC. 205. VALUE ENGINEERING REVIEW.

  Section 218(c) (33 U.S.C. 1298(c)) is amended by striking 
``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.

SEC. 206. GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

  (a) Coastal Localities.--The Administrator shall make grants under 
title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to appropriate 
instrumentalities for the purpose of construction of treatment works 
(including combined sewer overflow facilities) to serve coastal 
localities. No less than $10,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall 
be used for water infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, no less 
than $3,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be used for water 
infrastructure improvements in Bristol County, Massachusetts, and no 
less than \1/3\ of the amount of such grants shall be used to assist 
localities that meet both of the following criteria:
          (1) Need.--A locality that has over $2,000,000,000 in 
        category I treatment needs documented and accepted in the 
        Environmental Protection Agency's 1992 Needs Survey database as 
        of February 4, 1993.
          (2) Hardship.--A locality that has wastewater user charges, 
        for residential use of 7,000 gallons per month based on Ernst & 
        Young National Water and Wastewater 1992 Rate Survey, greater 
        than 0.65 percent of 1989 median household income for the 
        metropolitan statistical area in which such locality is located 
        as measured by the Bureau of the Census.
  (b) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 202(a)(1) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal share of grants under 
subsection (a) shall be 80 percent of the cost of construction, and the 
non-Federal share shall be 20 percent of the cost of construction.
  (c) Small Communities.--The Administrator shall make grants to States 
for the purpose of providing assistance for the construction of 
treatment works to serve small communities as defined by the State; 
except that the term ``small communities'' may not include any locality 
with a population greater than 75,000. Funds made available to carry 
out this subsection shall be allotted by the Administrator to the 
States in accordance with the allotment formula contained in section 
604(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for making grants under this section $300,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain available until expended and 
shall be equally divided between subsections (a) and (c) of this 
section. Such authorization of appropriation shall take effect only if 
the total amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996 to carry out title 
VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is at least 
$3,000,000,000.

                  TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.

  (a) Compliance Schedules.--Section 301(b) (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)) is 
amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``not later than July 1, 
        1977,'';
          (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``not 
        later than 3 years after the date such limitations are 
        established;''; and
          (3) by striking ``, and in no case later than March 31, 
        1989'' each place it appears.
  (b) Modifications for Nonconventional Pollutants.--
          (1) General authority.--Section 301(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
        1311(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``(when determined by the 
        Administrator to be a pollutant covered by subsection 
        (b)(2)(F)) and any other pollutant which the Administrator 
        lists under paragraph (4) of this subsection'' and inserting 
        ``and any other pollutant covered by subsection (b)(2)(F)''.
          (2) Procedural requirements for listing and removal of 
        pollutants.--Section 301(g) (33 U.S.C. 1311(g)) is further 
        amended by striking paragraphs (4) and (5).
  (c) Coal Remining.--Section 301(p)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1311(p)(2)) is 
amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``; 
except where monitoring demonstrates that the receiving waters do not 
meet such water quality standards prior to commencement of remining and 
where the applicant submits a plan which demonstrates to the 
satisfaction of the Administrator or the State, as the case may be, 
that identified measures will be utilized to improve the existing water 
quality of the receiving waters''.
  (d) Preexisting Coal Remining Operations.--Section 301(p) (33 U.S.C. 
1311) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Preexisting coal remining operations.--Any operator of 
        a coal mining operation who conducted remining at a site on 
        which coal mining originally was conducted before the effective 
        date of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
        shall be deemed to be in compliance with sections 301, 302, 
        306, 307, and 402 of this Act if--
                  ``(A) such operator commenced remining at such 
                operation prior to the adoption of this subsection in a 
                State program approved under section 402 and performed 
                such remining under a permit pursuant to such Act; and
                  ``(B) the post-mining discharges from such operation 
                do not add pollutants to the waters of the United 
                States in excess of those pollutants discharged from 
                the remined area before the coal remining operation 
                began.''.

SEC. 302. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES.

  (a) Innovative Production Processes.--Subsection (k) of section 301 
(33 U.S.C. 1311(k)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(k) Innovative Production Processes, Technologies, and Methods.--
          ``(1) In general.--In the case of any point source subject to 
        a permit under section 402, the Administrator, with the consent 
        of the State in which the point source is located, or the State 
        in consultation with the Administrator, in the case of a State 
        with an approved program under section 402, may, at the request 
        of the permittee and after public notice and opportunity for 
        comment, extend the deadline for the point source to comply 
        with any limitation established pursuant to subsection 
        (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E) and make other appropriate 
        modifications to the conditions of the point source permit, for 
        the purpose of encouraging the development and use of an 
        innovative pollution prevention technology (including an 
        innovative production process change, innovative pollution 
        control technology, or innovative recycling method) that has 
        the potential to--
                  ``(A) achieve an effluent reduction which is greater 
                than that required by the limitation otherwise 
                applicable;
                  ``(B) meet the applicable effluent limitation to 
                water while achieving a reduction of total emissions to 
                other media which is greater than that required by the 
                otherwise applicable emissions limitations for the 
                other media;
                  ``(C) meet the applicable effluent limitation to 
                water while achieving a reduction in energy 
                consumption; or
                  ``(D) achieve the required reduction with the 
                potential for significantly lower costs than the 
                systems determined by the Administrator to be 
                economically achievable.
          ``(2) Duration of extensions.--The extension of the 
        compliance deadlines under paragraph (1) shall not extend 
        beyond the period necessary for the owner of the point source 
        to install and use the innovative process, technology, or 
        method in full-scale production operations, but in no case 
        shall the compliance extensions extend beyond 3 years from the 
        date for compliance with the otherwise applicable limitations.
          ``(3) Consequences of failure.--In determining the amount of 
        any civil or administrative penalty pursuant to section 309(d) 
        or 309(g) for any violations of a section 402 permit during the 
        extension period referred to in paragraph (1) that are caused 
        by the unexpected failure of an innovative process, technology, 
        or method, a court or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall 
        reduce or eliminate the penalty for such violation if the 
        permittee has made good-faith efforts both to implement the 
        innovation and to comply with any interim limitations.
          ``(4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall review, 
        analyze, and compile in a report information on innovative and 
        alternative technologies which are available for preventing and 
        reducing pollution of navigable waters, submit such report to 
        Congress, and publish in the Federal Register a summary of such 
        report and a notice of the availability of such report. The 
        Administrator shall annually update the report prepared under 
        this paragraph, submit the updated report to Congress, and 
        publish in the Federal Register a summary of the updated report 
        and a notice of its availability.''.
  (b) Pollution Prevention Programs.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is 
amended--
          (1) in subsection (l) by striking ``subsection (n)'' and 
        inserting ``subsections (n), (q), and (r)''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(q) Pollution Prevention Programs.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of the State) 
        or a State with an approved program under section 402, after 
        public notice and an opportunity for comment, may issue a 
        permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of 
        subsection (b) of this section or section 306 and makes 
        appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or 
        may modify the requirements of section 307, if the 
        Administrator or State determines that pollution prevention 
        measures or practices (including recycling, source reduction, 
        and other measures to reduce discharges or other releases of 
        pollutants to the environment beyond those otherwise required 
        by law) together with such modifications will achieve an 
        overall reduction in emissions to the environment (including 
        emissions to water and air and disposal of solid wastes) from 
        the facility at which the permitted discharge is located that 
        is greater than would otherwise be achievable if the source 
        complied with the requirements of subsection (b) or section 306 
        or 307 and will result in an overall net benefit to the 
        environment.
          ``(2) Term of modification.--A modification made pursuant to 
        paragraph (1) shall extend for the term of the permit or, in 
        the case of modifications under section 307(b), for up to 10 
        years, and may be extended further if the Administrator or 
        State determines at the expiration of the initial modifications 
        that such modifications will continue to enable the source to 
        achieve greater emissions reduction than would otherwise be 
        attainable.
          ``(3) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of a 
        modification that is not extended further under paragraph (2), 
        the source shall have a reasonable period of time, not to 
        exceed 2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise 
        applicable requirements of this Act.
          ``(4) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit to 
        Congress a report on the implementation of this subsection and 
        the emissions reductions achieved as a result of modifications 
        made pursuant to this subsection.''.
  (c) Pollution Reduction Agreements.--Section 301 is further amended 
by adding at the end the following:
  ``(r) Pollution Reduction Agreements.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of the State) 
        or a State with an approved program under section 402, after 
        public notice and an opportunity for comment, may issue a 
        permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of 
        subsection (b) of this section or section 306 and makes 
        appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or 
        may modify the requirements of section 307, if the 
        Administrator or State determines that the owner or operator of 
        the source of the discharge has entered into a binding 
        contractual agreement with any other source of discharge in the 
        same watershed to implement pollution reduction controls or 
        measures beyond those otherwise required by law and that the 
        agreement is being implemented through modifications of a 
        permit issued under section 402 to the other source, by 
        modifications of the requirements of section 307 applicable to 
        the other source, or by nonpoint source control practices and 
        measures under section 319 applicable to the other source. The 
        Administrator or State may modify otherwise applicable 
        requirements pursuant to this section whenever the 
        Administrator or State determines that such pollution reduction 
        control or measures will result collectively in an overall 
        reduction in discharges to the watershed that is greater than 
        would otherwise be achievable if the parties to the pollution 
        reduction agreement each complied with applicable requirements 
        of subsection (b), section 306 or 307 resulting in a net 
        benefit to the watershed.
          ``(2) Notification to affected states.--Before issuing or 
        modifying a permit under this subsection allowing discharges 
        into a watershed that is within the jurisdiction of 2 or more 
        States, the Administrator or State shall provide written notice 
        of the proposed permit to all States with jurisdiction over the 
        watershed. The Administrator or State shall not issue or modify 
        such permit unless all States with jurisdiction over the 
        watershed have approved such permit or unless such States do 
        not disapprove such permit within 90 days of receiving such 
        written notice.
          ``(3) Term of modification.--Modifications made pursuant to 
        this subsection shall extend for the term of the modified 
        permits or, in the case of modifications under section 307, for 
        up to 10 years, and may be extended further if the 
        Administrator or State determines, at the expiration of the 
        initial modifications, that such modifications will continue to 
        enable the sources trading credits to achieve greater reduction 
        in discharges to the watershed collectively than would 
        otherwise be attainable.
          ``(4) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of a 
        modification that is not extended further under paragraph (3), 
        the source shall have a reasonable period of time, not to 
        exceed 2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise 
        applicable requirements of this Act.
          ``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this 
        subsection shall be construed to authorize the Administrator or 
        a State, as appropriate, to compel trading among sources or to 
        impose nonpoint source control practices without the consent of 
        the nonpoint source discharger.
          ``(6) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit a 
        report to Congress on the implementation of paragraph (1) and 
        the discharge reductions achieved as a result of modifications 
        made pursuant to paragraph (1).''.
  (d) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1342(o)(2)) is 
amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (D)--
                  (A) by inserting ``301(q), 301(r),'' after 
                ``301(n),''; and
                  (B) by striking ``or'' the last place it appears;
          (2) in subparagraph (E) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
          (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
                  ``(F) the permittee is taking pollution prevention or 
                water conservation measures that produce a net 
                environmental benefit, including, but not limited to, 
                measures that result in the substitution of one 
                pollutant for another pollutant; increase the 
                concentration of a pollutant while decreasing the 
                discharge flow; or increase the discharge of a 
                pollutant or pollutants from one or more outfalls at a 
                permittee's facility, when accompanied by offsetting 
                decreases in the discharge of a pollutant or pollutants 
                from other outfalls at the permittee's facility.''.
  (e) Antidegradation Review.--Section 303(d) (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Antidegradation review.--The Administrator may not 
        require a State, in implementing the antidegradation policy 
        established under this section, to conduct an antidegradation 
        review in the case of--
                  ``(A) increases in a discharge which are authorized 
                under section 301(g), 301(k), 301(q), 301(r), or 
                301(t);
                  ``(B) increases in the concentration of a pollutant 
                in a discharge caused by a reduction in wastewater 
                flow;
                  ``(C) increases in the discharge of a pollutant or 
                pollutants from one or more outfalls at a permittee's 
                facility, when accompanied by offsetting decreases in 
                the discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from other 
                outfalls at the permittee's facility;
                  ``(D) reissuance of a permit where there is no 
                increase in existing effluent limitations and, if a new 
                effluent limitation is being added to the permit, where 
                the new limitation is for a pollutant that is newly 
                found in an existing discharge due solely to improved 
                monitoring methods; or
                  ``(E) a new or increased discharge which is temporary 
                or short-term or which the State determines represents 
                an insignificant increased pollutant loading.''.
  (f) Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes.--Subsection (e) of 
section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317(e)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(e) Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes, Technologies, and 
Methods.--
          ``(1) In general.--In the case of any facility that proposes 
        to comply with the national categorical pretreatment standards 
        developed under subsection (b) by applying an innovative 
        pollution prevention technology (including an innovative 
        production process change, innovative pollution control 
        technology, or innovative recycling method) that meets the 
        requirements of section 301(k), the Administrator or the State, 
        in consultation with the Administrator, in the case of a State 
        which has a pretreatment program approved by the Administrator, 
        upon application of the facility and with the concurrence of 
        the treatment works into which the facility introduces 
        pollutants, may extend the deadlines for compliance with the 
        applicable national categorical pretreatment standards 
        established under this section and make other appropriate 
        modifications to the facility's pretreatment requirements if 
        the Administrator or the State, in consultation with the 
        Administrator, in the case of a State which has a pretreatment 
        program approved by the Administrator determines that--
                  ``(A) the treatment works will require the owner of 
                the source to conduct such tests and monitoring during 
                the period of the modification as are necessary to 
                ensure that the modification does not cause or 
                contribute to a violation by the treatment works under 
                section 402 or a violation of section 405;
                  ``(B) the treatment works will require the owner of 
                the source to report on progress at prescribed 
                milestones during the period of modification to ensure 
                that attainment of the pollution reduction goals and 
                conditions set forth in this section is being achieved; 
                and
                  ``(C) the proposed extensions or modifications will 
                not cause or contribute to any violation of a permit 
                granted to the treatment works under section 402, any 
                violation of section 405, or a pass through of 
                pollutants such that water quality standards are 
                exceeded in the body of water into which the treatment 
                works discharges.
          ``(2) Interim limitations.--A modification granted pursuant 
        to paragraph (1) shall include interim standards that shall 
        apply during the temporary period of the modification and shall 
        be the more stringent of--
                  ``(A) those necessary to ensure that the discharge 
                will not interfere with the operation of the treatment 
                works;
                  ``(B) those necessary to ensure that the discharge 
                will not pass through pollutants at a level that will 
                cause water quality standards to be exceeded in the 
                navigable waters into which the treatment works 
                discharges;
                  ``(C) the limits established in the previously 
                applicable control mechanism, in those cases in which 
                the limit from which a modification is being sought is 
                more stringent than the limit established in a previous 
                control mechanism applicable to such source.
          ``(3) Duration of extensions and modifications.--The 
        extension of the compliance deadlines and the modified 
        pretreatment requirements established pursuant to paragraph (1) 
        shall not extend beyond the period necessary for the owner to 
        install and use the innovative process, technology, or method 
        in full-scale production operation, but in no case shall the 
        compliance extensions and modified requirements extend beyond 3 
        years from the date for compliance with the otherwise 
        applicable standards.
          ``(4) Consequences of failure.--In determining the amount of 
        any civil or administrative penalty pursuant to section 309(d) 
        or 309(g) for any pretreatment violations, or violations by a 
        publicly owned treatment works, caused by the unexpected 
        failure of an innovative process, technology, or method, a 
        court or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall reduce, or 
        eliminate, the penalty amount for such violations provided the 
        facility made good-faith efforts both to implement the 
        innovation and to comply with the interim standards and, in the 
        case of a publicly owned treatment works, good-faith efforts 
        were made to implement the pretreatment program.''.

SEC. 303. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

  (a) No Reasonable Relationship.--Section 303(b) (33 U.S.C. 1313(b)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) No reasonable relationship.--No water quality standard 
        shall be established under this subsection where there is no 
        reasonable relationship between the costs and anticipated 
        benefits of attaining such standard.''.
  (b) Revision of State Standards.--
          (1) Review of revisions by the administrator.--Section 
        303(c)(1) is amended by striking ``three'' and all that follows 
        through ``1972'' and inserting the following: ``5-year period 
        beginning on the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
        Amendments of 1995 and, for criteria that are revised by the 
        Administrator pursuant to section 304(a), on or before the 
        180th day after the date of such revision by the 
        Administrator''.
          (2) Factors.--Section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) is amended 
        by striking paragraph (2)(A) and inserting the following:
          ``(2) State adoption of water quality standards.--
                  ``(A) In general.--
                          ``(i) Submission to administrator.--Whenever 
                        the State revises or adopts a new water quality 
                        standard, such standard shall be submitted to 
                        the Administrator.
                          ``(ii) Designated uses and water quality 
                        criteria.--The revised or new standard shall 
                        consist of the designated uses of the navigable 
                        waters involved and the water quality criteria 
                        for such waters based upon such uses.
                          ``(iii) Protection of human health.--The 
                        revised or new standard shall protect human 
                        health and the environment and enhance water 
                        quality.
                          ``(iv) Development of standards.--In 
                        developing revised or new standards, the State 
                        may consider information reasonably available 
                        on the likely social, economic, energy use, and 
                        environmental cost associated with attaining 
                        such standards in relation to the benefits to 
                        be attained. The State may provide a 
                        description of the considerations used in the 
                        establishment of the standards.
                          ``(v) Record of state's review.--The record 
                        of a State's review under paragraph (1) of an 
                        existing standard or adoption of a new standard 
                        that includes water quality criteria issued or 
                        revised by the Administrator after the date of 
                        the enactment of this sentence shall contain 
                        available estimates of costs of compliance with 
                        the water quality criteria published by the 
                        Administrator under section 304(a)(12) and any 
                        comments received by the State on such 
                        estimate.
                          ``(vi) Limitation on statutory 
                        construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
                        be construed to limit or delay the use of any 
                        guidance of the Administrator interpreting 
                        water quality criteria to allow the use of a 
                        dissolved metals concentration measurement or 
                        similar adjustment in determining compliance 
                        with a water quality standard or establishing 
                        effluent limitations.''.
  (c) Revision of Designated Uses.--Section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(C) Revision of designated uses.--
                          ``(i) Regulations.--After consultation with 
                        State officials and not later than 1 year after 
                        the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, 
                        the Administrator shall propose, and not later 
                        than 2 years after such date of enactment shall 
                        issue, a revision to the Administrator's 
                        regulations regarding designation of uses of 
                        waters by States.
                          ``(ii) Waters not attaining designated 
                        uses.--For navigable waters not attaining 
                        designated uses, the Administrator shall 
                        identify conditions that make attainment of the 
                        designated use infeasible and shall allow a 
                        State to modify the designated use if the State 
                        determines that such condition or conditions 
                        are present with respect to a particular 
                        receiving water, or if the State determines 
                        that the costs of achieving the designated use 
                        are not justified by the benefits.
                          ``(iii) Waters attaining designated uses.--
                        For navigable waters attaining the designated 
                        use applicable to such waters for all 
                        pollutants, the Administrator shall allow a 
                        State to modify the designated use only if the 
                        State determines that continued maintenance of 
                        the water quality necessary to support the 
                        designated use will result in significant 
                        social or economic dislocations substantially 
                        out of proportion to the benefits to be 
                        achieved from maintenance of the designated 
                        use.
                          ``(iv) Modification of point source limits.--
                        Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
                        Act, water quality based limits applicable to 
                        point sources may be modified as appropriate to 
                        conform to any modified designated use under 
                        this section.''.

SEC. 304. USE OF BIOLOGICAL MONITORING.

  (a) Laboratory Biological Monitoring Criteria.--Subparagraph (B) of 
section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``Criteria for toxic pollutants.--'' after 
        ``(B)'';
          (2) by moving such subparagraph 4 ems to the right;
          (3) by inserting after the third sentence the following: 
        ``Criteria for whole effluent toxicity based on laboratory 
        biological monitoring or assessment methods shall employ an 
        aquatic species indigenous, or representative of indigenous, 
        and relevant to the type of waters covered by such criteria and 
        shall take into account the accepted analytical variability 
        associated with such methods in defining an exceedance of such 
        criteria.''.
  (b) Permit Procedures.--Section 402 is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(q) Biological Monitoring Procedures.--
          ``(1) Responding to exceedances.--If a permit issued under 
        this section contains terms, conditions, or limitations 
        requiring biological monitoring or whole effluent toxicity 
        testing designed to meet criteria for whole effluent toxicity 
        based on laboratory biological monitoring or assessment methods 
        described in section 303(c)(2)(B), the permit shall establish 
        procedures for responding to an exceedance of such criteria 
        that includes analysis, identification, reduction, or, where 
        feasible, elimination of any effluent toxicity. The failure of 
        a biological monitoring test or whole effluent toxicity test 
        shall not result in a finding of a violation under this Act, 
        unless it is demonstrated that the permittee has failed to 
        comply with such procedures.
          ``(2) Discontinuance of use.--The permit shall allow the 
        permittee to discontinue such procedures--
                  ``(A) if the permittee is an entity, other than a 
                publicly owned treatment works, if the permittee 
                demonstrates through a field bio-assessment study that 
                a balanced and healthy population of aquatic species 
                indigenous, or representative of indigenous, and 
                relevant to the type of waters exists in the waters 
                that are affected by the discharge, and if the 
                applicable water quality standards are met for such 
                waters; or
                  ``(B) if the permittee is a publicly owned treatment 
                works, the source or cause of such toxicity cannot, 
                after thorough investigation, be identified.''.
  (c) Information on Water Quality Criteria.--Section 304(a)(8) (33 
U.S.C. 1314(a)(8)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``, after'' and all that follows through 
        ``1987,''; and
          (2) by inserting after ``publish'' the following: ``, 
        consistent with section 303(c)(2)(B) of this Act,''.

SEC. 305. ARID AREAS.

  (a) Constructed Water Conveyances.--Section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(D) Standards for constructed water conveyances.--
                          ``(i) Relevant factors.--If a State exercises 
                        jurisdiction over constructed water conveyances 
                        in establishing standards under this section, 
                        the State may consider the following:
                                  ``(I) The existing and planned uses 
                                of water transported in a conveyance 
                                system.
                                  ``(II) Any water quality impacts 
                                resulting from any return flow from a 
                                constructed water conveyance to 
                                navigable waters and the need to 
                                protect downstream users.
                                  ``(III) Management practices 
                                necessary to maintain the conveyance 
                                system.
                                  ``(IV) State or regional water 
                                resources management and water 
                                conservation plans.
                                  ``(V) The authorized purpose for the 
                                constructed conveyance.
                          ``(ii) Relevant uses.--If a State adopts or 
                        reviews water quality standards for constructed 
                        water conveyances, it shall not be required to 
                        establish recreation, aquatic life, or fish 
                        consumption uses for such systems if the uses 
                        are not existing or reasonably foreseeable or 
                        such uses impede the authorized uses of the 
                        conveyance system.''.
  (b) Criteria and Guidance for Ephemeral and Effluent-Dependent 
Streams.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
          ``(9) Criteria and guidance for ephemeral and effluent-
        dependent streams.--
                  ``(A) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the 
                date of the enactment of this paragraph, and after 
                providing notice and opportunity for public comment, 
                the Administrator shall develop and publish--
                          ``(i) criteria for ephemeral and effluent-
                        dependent streams; and
                          ``(ii) guidance to the States on development 
                        and adoption of water quality standards 
                        applicable to such streams.
                  ``(B) Factors.--The criteria and guidance developed 
                under subparagraph (A) shall take into account the 
                limited ability of ephemeral and effluent-dependent 
                streams to support aquatic life and certain designated 
                uses, shall include consideration of the role the 
                discharge may play in maintaining the flow or level of 
                such waters, and shall promote the beneficial use of 
                reclaimed water pursuant to section 101(a)(10).''.
  (c) Factors Required To Be Considered by Administrator.--Section 
303(c)(4) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In revising 
or adopting any new standard for ephemeral or effluent-dependent 
streams under this paragraph, the Administrator shall consider the 
factors referred to in section 304(a)(9)(B).''.
  (d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
  ``(21) The term `effluent-dependent stream' means a stream or a 
segment thereof--
          ``(A) with respect to which the flow (based on the annual 
        average expected flow, determined by calculating the average 
        mode over a 10-year period) is primarily attributable to the 
        discharge of treated wastewater;
          ``(B) that, in the absence of a discharge of treated 
        wastewater and other primary anthropogenic surface or 
        subsurface flows, would be an ephemeral stream; or
          ``(C) that is an effluent-dependent stream under applicable 
        State water quality standards.
  ``(22) The term `ephemeral stream' means a stream or segments thereof 
that flows periodically in response to precipitation, snowmelt, or 
runoff.
  ``(23) The term `constructed water conveyance' means a manmade water 
transport system constructed for the purpose of transporting water in a 
waterway that is not and never was a natural perennial waterway.''.

SEC. 306. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.

  Section 303(d)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(C)) is amended to read as 
follows:
                  ``(C) Total maximum daily loads.--
                          ``(i) State determination of reasonable 
                        progress.--Each State shall establish, to the 
                        extent and according to a schedule the State 
                        determines is necessary to achieve reasonable 
                        progress toward the attainment or maintenance 
                        of water quality standards, for the waters 
                        identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this 
                        subsection, and in accordance with the priority 
                        ranking, the total maximum daily load, for 
                        those pollutants which the Administrator 
                        identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable 
                        for such calculation.
                          ``(ii) Phased total maximum daily loads.--
                        Total maximum daily loads may reflect load 
                        reductions the State expects will be realized 
                        over time resulting from anticipated 
                        implementation of best management practices, 
                        storm water controls, or other nonpoint or 
                        point source controls; so long as by December 
                        31, 2015, such loads are established at levels 
                        necessary to implement the applicable water 
                        quality standards with seasonal variations and 
                        a margin of safety.
                          ``(iii) Considerations.--In establishing each 
                        load, the State shall consider the availability 
                        of scientifically valid data and information, 
                        the projected reductions achievable by control 
                        measures or practices for all sources or 
                        categories of sources, and the relative cost-
                        effectiveness of implementing such control 
                        measures or practices for such sources.''.

SEC. 307. REVISION OF CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND LIMITATIONS.

  (a) Revision of Water Quality Criteria.--
          (1) Factors.--Section 304(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(1)) is 
        amended--
                  (A) by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``(C)''; 
                and
                  (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting 
                the following: ``(D) on the organisms that are likely 
                to be present in various ecosystems; (E) on the 
                bioavailability of pollutants under various natural and 
                man induced conditions; (F) on the magnitude, duration, 
                and frequency of exposure reasonably required to induce 
                the adverse effects of concern; and (G) on the 
                bioaccumulation threat presented under various natural 
                conditions.''.
          (2) Certification.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is 
        amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(10) Certification.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the 
                date of the enactment of this paragraph, and at least 
                once every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall 
                publish a written certification that the criteria for 
                water quality developed under paragraph (1) reflect the 
                latest and best scientific knowledge.
                  ``(B) Updating of existing criteria.--Not later than 
                90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
                paragraph, the Administrator shall publish a schedule 
                for updating, by not later than 5 years after the date 
                of the enactment of this paragraph, the criteria for 
                water quality developed under paragraph (1) before the 
                date of the enactment of this subsection.
                  ``(C) Deadline for revision of certain criteria.--Not 
                later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
                this paragraph, the Administrator shall revise and 
                publish criteria under paragraph (1) for ammonia, 
                chronic whole effluent toxicity, and metals as 
                necessary to allow the Administrator to make the 
                certification under subparagraph (A).''.
  (b) Consideration of Certain Contaminants.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 
1314(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(11) Consideration of certain contaminants.--In developing 
        and revising criteria for water quality criteria under 
        paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider addressing, at 
        a minimum, each contaminant regulated pursuant to section 1412 
        of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1).''.
  (c) Cost Estimate.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is further 
amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(12) Cost estimate.--Whenever the Administrator issues or 
        revises a criteria for water quality under paragraph (1), the 
        Administrator, after consultation with Federal and State 
        agencies and other interested persons, shall develop and 
        publish an estimate of the costs that would likely be incurred 
        if sources were required to comply with the criteria and an 
        analysis to support the estimate. Such analysis shall meet the 
        requirements relevant to the estimation of costs published in 
        guidance issued under section 324(b).''.
  (d) Revision of Effluent Limitations.--
          (1) Elimination of requirement for annual revision.--Section 
        304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is amended in the matter preceding 
        paragraph (1) by striking ``and, at least annually 
        thereafter,'' and inserting ``and thereafter shall''.
          (2) Special rule.--Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is 
        amended by striking the period at the end of the first sentence 
        and inserting the following: ``; except that guidelines issued 
        under paragraph (1)(A) addressing pollutants identified 
        pursuant to subsection (a)(4) shall not be revised after 
        February 15, 1995, to be more stringent unless such revised 
        guidelines meet the requirements of paragraph (4)(A).''.
  (e) Schedule for Review of Guidelines.--Section 304(m)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
1314(m)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(1) Publication.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
        the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, the 
        Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a plan 
        which shall--
                  ``(A) identify categories of sources discharging 
                pollutants for which guidelines under subsection (b)(2) 
                of this section and section 306 have not been 
                previously published;
                  ``(B) establish a schedule for determining whether 
                such discharge presents a significant risk to human 
                health and the environment and whether such risk is 
                sufficient, when compared to other sources of 
                pollutants in navigable waters, to warrant regulation 
                by the Administrator; and
                  ``(C) establish a schedule for issuance of effluent 
                guidelines for those categories identified pursuant to 
                subparagraph (B).''.
  (f) Revision of Pretreatment Requirements.--Section 304(g)(1) (33 
U.S.C. 1314(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``and review at least 
annually thereafter and, if appropriate, revise'' and insert ``and 
thereafter revise, as appropriate,''.
  (g) Central Treatment Facility Exemption.--Section 304 (33 U.S.C. 
1314) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(n) Central Treatment Facility Exemption.--The exemption from 
effluent guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source 
Category set forth in section 420.01(b) of title 40, Code of Federal 
Regulations, for the facilities listed in such section shall remain in 
effect for any facility that met the requirements of such section on or 
before July 26, 1982, until the Administrator develops alternative 
effluent guidelines for the facility.''.

SEC. 308. INFORMATION AND GUIDELINES.

  Section 304(i)(2)(D) (33 U.S.C. 1314(i)(2)(D)) is amended by striking 
``any person'' and all that follows through the period at the end and 
inserting the following: ``any person (other than a retiree or an 
employee or official of a city, county, or local governmental agency) 
who receives a significant portion of his or her income during the 
period of service on the board or body directly or indirectly from 
permit holders or applicants for a permit).''.

SEC. 309. SECONDARY TREATMENT.

  (a) Coastal Discharges.--Section 304(d) (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Coastal discharges.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        any municipal wastewater treatment facility shall be deemed the 
        equivalent of a secondary treatment facility if each of the 
        following requirements is met:
                  ``(A) The facility employs chemically enhanced 
                primary treatment.
                  ``(B) The facility, on the date of the enactment of 
                this paragraph, discharges through an ocean outfall 
                into an open marine environment greater than 4 miles 
                offshore into a depth greater than 300 feet.
                  ``(C) The facility's discharge is in compliance with 
                all local and State water quality standards for the 
                receiving waters.
                  ``(D) The facility's discharge will be subject to an 
                ocean monitoring program acceptable to relevant Federal 
                and State regulatory agencies.''.
  (b) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by 
        adding at the end the following:
  ``(s) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, with the concurrence of 
        the State, shall issue a 10-year permit under section 402 which 
        modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this 
        section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant from a 
        publicly owned treatment works into marine waters which are at 
        least 150 feet deep through an ocean outfall which discharges 
        at least 1 mile offshore, if the applicant demonstrates that--
                  ``(A) there is an applicable ocean plan and the 
                facility's discharge is in compliance with all local 
                and State water quality standards for the receiving 
                waters;
                  ``(B) the facility's discharge will be subject to an 
                ocean monitoring program determined to be acceptable by 
                relevant Federal and State regulatory agencies;
                  ``(C) the applicant has an Agency approved 
                pretreatment plan in place; and
                  ``(D) the applicant, at the time such modification 
                becomes effective, will be discharging effluent which 
                has received at least chemically enhanced primary 
                treatment and achieves a monthly average of 75 percent 
                removal of suspended solids.
          ``(2) Discharge of any pollutant into marine waters 
        defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `discharge 
        of any pollutant into marine waters' means a discharge into 
        deep waters of the territorial sea or the waters of the 
        contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine waters where there is 
        strong tidal movement.
          ``(3) Deadline.--On or before the 90th day after the date of 
        submittal of an application for a modification under paragraph 
        (1), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant a modified 
        permit under section 402 or a written determination that the 
        application does not meet the terms and conditions of this 
        subsection.
          ``(4) Effect of failure to respond.--If the Administrator 
        does not respond to an application for a modification under 
        paragraph (1) on or before the 90th day referred to in 
        paragraph (3), the application shall be deemed approved and the 
        modification sought by the applicant shall be in effect for the 
        succeeding 10-year period.''.
          (2) Extension of application deadline.--Section 301(j) (33 
        U.S.C. 1311(j)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(6) Extension of application deadline.--In the 365-day 
        period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
        paragraph, municipalities may apply for a modification pursuant 
        to subsection (s) of the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) 
        of this section.''.
  (c) Modifications for Small System Treatment Technologies.--Section 
301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(t) Modifications for Small System Treatment Technologies.--The 
Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, or a State with an 
approved program under section 402 may issue a permit under section 402 
which modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section 
with respect to the discharge of any pollutant from a publicly owned 
treatment works serving a community of 20,000 people or fewer if the 
applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that--
          ``(1) the effluent from such facility originates primarily 
        from domestic users; and
          ``(2) such facility utilizes a properly constructed and 
        operated alternative treatment system (including recirculating 
        sand filter systems, constructed wetlands, and oxidation 
        lagoons) which is equivalent to secondary treatment or will 
        provide in the receiving waters and watershed an adequate level 
        of protection to human health and the environment and 
        contribute to the attainment of water quality standards.''.
  (d) Puerto Rico.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C 1311) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(u) Puerto Rico.--
          ``(1) Study by government of puerto rico.--Not later than 3 
        months after the date of the enactment of this section, the 
        Government of Puerto Rico may, after consultation with the 
        Administrator, initiate a study of the marine environment of 
        Anasco Bay off the coast of the Mayaguez region of Puerto Rico 
        to determine the feasibility of constructing a deepwater 
        outfall for the publicly owned treatment works located at 
        Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Such study shall recommend one or more 
        technically feasible locations for the deepwater outfall based 
        on the effects of such outfall on the marine environment.
          ``(2) Application for modification.--Notwithstanding 
        subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than 18 months after the date 
        of the enactment of this section, an application may be 
        submitted for a modification pursuant to subsection (h) of the 
        requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section by the 
        owner of the publicly owned treatment works at Mayaguez, Puerto 
        Rico, for a deepwater outfall at a location recommended in the 
        study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
          ``(3) Initial determination.--On or before the 90th day after 
        the date of submittal of an application for modification under 
        paragraph (2), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant a 
        draft initial determination regarding the modification of the 
        existing permit.
          ``(4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day after 
        the date of submittal of an application for modification under 
        paragraph (2), the Administrator shall issue a final 
        determination regarding such modification.
          ``(5) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted pursuant 
        to an application submitted under this subsection, such 
        modification shall be effective only if the new deepwater 
        outfall is operational within 5 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection. In all other aspects, such 
        modification shall be effective for the period applicable to 
        all modifications granted under subsection (h).''.

SEC. 310. TOXIC POLLUTANTS.

  (a) Toxic Effluent Limitations and Standards.--Section 307(a)(2) (33 
U.S.C. 1317(a)(2)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``(2) Each'' and inserting the following:
          ``(2) Toxic effluent limitations and standards.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Each'';
          (2) by moving paragraph (2) 2 ems to the right;
          (3) by indenting subparagraph (A), as so designated, and 
        moving the remaining text of such subparagraph 2 ems further to 
        the right; and
          (4) in subparagraph (A), as so designated, by striking the 
        third sentence; and
          (5) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Factors.--The published effluent standard (or 
                prohibition) shall take into account--
                          ``(i) the pollutant's persistence, toxicity, 
                        degradability, and bioaccumulation potential;
                          ``(ii) the magnitude and risk of exposure to 
                        the pollutant, including risks to affected 
                        organisms and the importance of such organisms;
                          ``(iii) the relative contribution of point 
                        source discharges of the pollutant to the 
                        overall risk from the pollutant;
                          ``(iv) the availability of, costs associated 
                        with, and risk posed by substitute chemicals or 
                        processes or the availability of treatment 
                        processes or control technology;
                          ``(v) the beneficial and adverse social and 
                        economic effects of the effluent standard, 
                        including the impact on energy resources;
                          ``(vi) the extent to which effective control 
                        is being or may be achieved in an expeditious 
                        manner under other regulatory authorities;
                          ``(vii) the impact on national security 
                        interests; and
                          ``(viii) such other factors as the 
                        Administrator considers appropriate.''.
  (b) Beach Water Quality Monitoring.--
          (1) In general.--Section 304 is further amended by adding at 
        the end the following:
  ``(o) Beach Water Quality Monitoring.--After consultation with 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and after providing 
notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall 
develop and issue, not later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, guidance that States may use in monitoring water 
quality at beaches and issuing health advisories with respect to 
beaches, including testing protocols, recommendations on frequency of 
testing and monitoring, recommendations on pollutants for which 
monitoring and testing should be conducted, and recommendations on when 
health advisories should be issued. Such guidance shall be based on the 
best available scientific information and be sufficient to protect 
public health and safety in the case of any reasonably expected 
exposure to pollutants as a result of swimming or bathing.''.
          (2) Reports.--Section 516(a) (33 U.S.C. 1375(a)) is amended 
        by striking ``and (9)'' and inserting ``(9) the monitoring 
        conducted by States on the water quality of beaches and the 
        issuance of health advisories with respect to beaches, and 
        (10)''.
  (c) Fish Consumption Advisories.--Any fish consumption advisories 
issued by the Administrator shall be based upon the protocols, 
methodology, and findings of the Food and Drug Administration.

SEC. 311. LOCAL PRETREATMENT AUTHORITY.

  Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
  ``(f) Local Pretreatment Authority.--
          ``(1) Demonstration.--If, to carry out the purposes 
        identified in paragraph (2), a publicly owned treatment works 
        with an approved pretreatment program demonstrates to the 
        satisfaction of the Administrator, or a State with an approved 
        program under section 402, that--
                  ``(A) such publicly owned treatment works is in 
                compliance, and is likely to remain in compliance, with 
                its permit under section 402, including applicable 
                effluent limitations and narrative standards;
                  ``(B) such publicly owned treatment works is in 
                compliance, and is likely to remain in compliance, with 
                applicable air emission limitations;
                  ``(C) biosolids produced by such publicly owned 
                treatment works meet beneficial use requirements under 
                section 405; and
                  ``(D) such publicly owned treatment works is likely 
                to continue to meet all applicable State requirements;
        the approved pretreatment program shall be modified to allow 
        the publicly owned treatment works to apply local limits in 
        lieu of categorical pretreatment standards promulgated under 
        this section.
          ``(2) Purposes.--The publicly owned treatment works may make 
        the demonstration to the Administrator or the State, as the 
        case may be, to apply local limits in lieu of categorical 
        pretreatment standards, as the treatment works deems necessary, 
        for the purposes of--
                  ``(A) reducing the administrative burden associated 
                with the designation of an `industrial user' as a 
                `categorical industrial user'; or
                  ``(B) eliminating additional redundant or unnecessary 
                treatment by industrial users which has little or no 
                environmental benefit.
          ``(3) Limitations.--
                  ``(A) Significant noncompliance.--The publicly owned 
                treatment works may not apply local limits in lieu of 
                categorical pretreatment standards to any industrial 
                user which is in significant noncompliance (as defined 
                by the Administrator) with its approved pretreatment 
                program.
                  ``(B) Procedures.--A demonstration to the 
                Administrator or the State under paragraph (1) must be 
                made under the procedures for pretreatment program 
                modification provided under this section and section 
                402.
          ``(4) Annual review.--
                  ``(A) Demonstration relating to ability to meet 
                criteria.--As part of the annual pretreatment report of 
                the publicly owned treatment works to the Administrator 
                or State, the treatment works shall demonstrate that 
                application of local limits in lieu of categorical 
                pretreatment standards has not resulted in the 
                inability of the treatment works to meet the criteria 
                of paragraph (1).
                  ``(B) Termination of authority.--If the Administrator 
                or State determines that application of local limits in 
                lieu of categorical pretreatment standards has resulted 
                in the inability of the treatment works to meet the 
                criteria of paragraph (1), the authority of a publicly 
                owned treatment works under this section shall be 
                terminated and any affected industrial user shall have 
                a reasonable period of time to be determined by the 
                Administrator or State, but not to exceed 2 years, to 
                come into compliance with any otherwise applicable 
                requirements of this Act.''.

SEC. 312. COMPLIANCE WITH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

  Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
  ``(g) Compliance With Management Practices.--
          ``(1) Special rule.--The Administrator or a State with a 
        permit program approved under section 402 may allow any person 
        that introduces silver into a publicly owned treatment works to 
        comply with a code of management practices with respect to the 
        introduction of silver into the treatment works for a period 
        not to exceed 5 years beginning on the date of the enactment of 
        this subsection in lieu of complying with any pretreatment 
        requirement (including any local limit) based on an effluent 
        limitation for the treatment works derived from a water quality 
        standard for silver--
                  ``(A) if the treatment works has accepted the code of 
                management practices;
                  ``(B) if the code of management practices meets the 
                requirements of paragraph (2); and
                  ``(C) if the facility is--
                          ``(i) part of a class of facilities for which 
                        the code of management practices has been 
                        approved by the Administrator or the State;
                          ``(ii) in compliance with a mass limitation 
                        or concentration level for silver attainable 
                        with the application of the best available 
                        technology economically achievable for such 
                        facilities, as established by the Administrator 
                        after a review of the treatment and management 
                        practices of such class of facilities; and
                          ``(iii) implementing the code of management 
                        practices.
          ``(2) Code of management practices.--A code of management 
        practices meets the requirements of this paragraph if the code 
        of management practices--
                  ``(A) is developed and adopted by representatives of 
                industry and publicly owned treatment works of major 
                urban areas;
                  ``(B) is approved by the Administrator or the State, 
                as the case may be;
                  ``(C) reflects acceptable industry practices to 
                minimize the amount of silver introduced into publicly 
                owned treatment works or otherwise entering the 
                environment from the class of facilities for which the 
                code of management practices is approved; and
                  ``(D) addresses, at a minimum--
                          ``(i) the use of the best available 
                        technology economically achievable, based on a 
                        review of the current state of such technology 
                        for such class of facilities and of the 
                        effluent guidelines for such facilities;
                          ``(ii) water conservation measures available 
                        to reduce the total quantity of discharge from 
                        such facilities to publicly owned treatment 
                        works;
                          ``(iii) opportunities to recover silver (and 
                        other pollutants) from the waste stream prior 
                        to introduction into a publicly owned treatment 
                        works; and
                          ``(iv) operating and maintenance practices to 
                        minimize the amount of silver introduced into 
                        publicly owned treatment works and to assure 
                        consistent performance of the management 
                        practices and treatment technology specified 
                        under this paragraph.
          ``(3) Interim extension for potws receiving silver.--In any 
        case in which the Administrator or a State with a permit 
        program approved under section 402 allows under paragraph (1) a 
        person to comply with a code of management practices for a 
        period of not to exceed 5 years in lieu of complying with a 
        pretreatment requirement (including a local limit) for silver, 
        the Administrator or State, as applicable, shall modify the 
        permit conditions and effluent limitations for any affected 
        publicly owned treatment works to defer for such period 
        compliance with any effluent limitation derived from a water 
        quality standard for silver beyond that required by section 
        301(b)(2), notwithstanding the provisions of section 303(d)(4) 
        and 402(o), if the Administrator or the State, as applicable, 
        finds that--
                  ``(A) the quality of any affected waters and the 
                operation of the treatment works will be adequately 
                protected during such period by implementation of the 
                code of management practices and the use of best 
                technology economically achievable by persons 
                introducing silver into the treatment works;
                  ``(B) the introduction of pollutants into such 
                treatment works is in compliance with paragraphs (1) 
                and (2); and
                  ``(C) a program of enforcement by such treatment 
                works and the State ensures such compliance.''.

SEC. 313. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT.

  (a) Adjustment of Penalties.--Section 309 (33 U.S.C. 1319) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
  ``(h) Adjustment of Monetary Penalties for Inflation.--
          ``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
        the enactment of this subsection, and at least once every 4 
        years thereafter, the Administrator shall adjust each monetary 
        penalty provided by this section in accordance with paragraph 
        (2) and publish such adjustment in the Federal Register.
          ``(2) Method.--An adjustment to be made pursuant to paragraph 
        (1) shall be determined by increasing or decreasing the maximum 
        monetary penalty or the range of maximum monetary penalties, as 
        appropriate, by multiplying the cost-of-living adjustment and 
        the amount of such penalty.
          ``(3) Cost-of-living adjustment defined.--In this subsection, 
        the term `cost-of-living' adjustment means the percentage (if 
        any) for each monetary penalty by which--
                  ``(A) the Consumer Price Index for the month of June 
                of the calendar year preceding the adjustment; is 
                greater or less than
                  ``(B) the Consumer Price Index for--
                          ``(i) with respect to the first adjustment 
                        under this subsection, the month of June of the 
                        calendar year preceding the date of the 
                        enactment of this subsection; and
                          ``(ii) with respect to each subsequent 
                        adjustment under this subsection, the month of 
                        June of the calendar year in which the amount 
                        of such monetary penalty was last adjusted 
                        under this subsection.
          ``(4) Rounding.--In making adjustments under this subsection, 
        the Administrator may round the dollar amount of a penalty, as 
        appropriate.
          ``(5) Applicability.--Any increase or decrease to a monetary 
        penalty resulting from this subsection shall apply only to 
        violations which occur after the date any such increase takes 
        effect.''.
  (b) Joining States as Parties in Actions Involving Municipalities.--
Section 309(e) (33 U.S.C. 1319(e)) is amended by striking ``shall be 
joined as a party. Such State'' and inserting ``may be joined as a 
party. Any State so joined as a party''.

SEC. 314. RESPONSE PLANS FOR DISCHARGES OF OIL OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES.

  (a) In General.--The requirements of section 311(j)(5) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)) shall not apply with 
respect to--
          (1) a municipal or industrial treatment works at which no 
        greater than a de minimis quantity of oil or hazardous 
        substances is stored; or
          (2) a facility that stores process water mixed with a de 
        minimis quantity of oil.
  (b) Regulations.--The President shall issue regulations clarifying 
the meaning of the term ``de minimis quantity of oil or hazardous 
substances'' as used in this section.

SEC. 315. MARINE SANITATION DEVICES.

  Section 312(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1322(c)(1)(A)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following: ``Not later than 2 years after the date of 
the enactment of this sentence, and at least once every 5 years 
thereafter, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of 
the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating and after 
providing notice and opportunity for public comment, shall review such 
standards and regulations to take into account improvements in 
technology relating to marine sanitation devices and based on such 
review shall make such revisions to such standards and regulations as 
may be necessary.''.

SEC. 316. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

  (a) Application of Certain Provisions.--Section 313(a) (33 U.S.C. 
1323(a)) is amended by striking all preceding subsection (b) and 
inserting the following:

``SEC. 313. FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL.

  ``(a) Applicability of Federal, State, Interstate, and Local Laws.--
          ``(1) In general.--Each department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 
        branches of the Federal Government--
                  ``(A) having jurisdiction over any property or 
                facility, or
                  ``(B) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may 
                result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants,
        and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in the performance 
        of his official duties, shall be subject to, and comply with, 
        all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, 
        administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting 
        the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner 
        and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity, including 
        the payment of reasonable service charges.
          ``(2) Types of actions covered.--Paragraph (1) shall apply--
                  ``(A) to any requirement whether substantive or 
                procedural (including any recordkeeping or reporting 
                requirement, any requirement respecting permits, and 
                any other requirement),
                  ``(B) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or local 
                administrative authority, and
                  ``(C) to any process and sanction, whether enforced 
                in Federal, State, or local courts or in any other 
                manner.
          ``(3) Penalties and fines.--The Federal, State, interstate, 
        and local substantive and procedural requirements, 
        administrative authority, and process and sanctions referred to 
        in paragraph (1) include all administrative orders and all 
        civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of 
        whether such penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in 
        nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or continuing 
        violations.
          ``(4) Sovereign immunity.--
                  ``(A) Waiver.--The United States hereby expressly 
                waives any immunity otherwise applicable to the United 
                States with respect to any requirement, administrative 
                authority, and process and sanctions referred to in 
                paragraph (1) (including any injunctive relief, any 
                administrative order, any civil or administrative 
                penalty or fine referred to in paragraph (3), or any 
                reasonable service charge).
                  ``(B) Processing fees.--The reasonable service 
                charges referred to in this paragraph include fees or 
                charges assessed in connection with the processing and 
                issuance of permits, renewal of permits, amendments to 
                permits, review of plans, studies, and other documents, 
                and inspection and monitoring of facilities, as well as 
                any other nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed 
                in connection with a Federal, State, interstate, or 
                local water pollution regulatory program.
          ``(5) Exemptions.--
                  ``(A) General authority of president.--The President 
                may exempt any effluent source of any department, 
                agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch from 
                compliance with any requirement to which paragraph (1) 
                applies if the President determines it to be in the 
                paramount interest of the United States to do so; 
                except that no exemption may be granted from the 
                requirements of section 306 or 307 of this Act.
                  ``(B) Limitation.--No exemptions shall be granted 
                under subparagraph (A) due to lack of appropriation 
                unless the President shall have specifically requested 
                such appropriation as a part of the budgetary process 
                and the Congress shall have failed to make available 
                such requested appropriation.
                  ``(C) Time period.--Any exemption under subparagraph 
                (A) shall be for a period not in excess of 1 year, but 
                additional exemptions may be granted for periods of not 
                to exceed 1 year upon the President's making a new 
                determination.
                  ``(D) Military property.--In addition to any 
                exemption of a particular effluent source, the 
                President may, if the President determines it to be in 
                the paramount interest of the United States to do so, 
                issue regulations exempting from compliance with the 
                requirements of this section any weaponry, equipment, 
                aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or other classes or 
                categories of property, and access to such property, 
                which are owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the 
                United States (including the Coast Guard) or by the 
                National Guard of any State and which are uniquely 
                military in nature. The President shall reconsider the 
                need for such regulations at 3-year intervals.
                  ``(E) Reports.--The President shall report each 
                January to the Congress all exemptions from the 
                requirements of this section granted during the 
                preceding calendar year, together with the President's 
                reason for granting such exemption.
          ``(6) Venue.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
        prevent any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
        Federal Government, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof 
        in the performance of official duties, from removing to the 
        appropriate Federal district court any proceeding to which the 
        department, agency, or instrumentality or officer, agent, or 
        employee thereof is subject pursuant to this section, and any 
        such proceeding may be removed in accordance with chapter 89 of 
        title 28, United States Code.
          ``(7) Personal liability of federal employees.--No agent, 
        employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally 
        liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State, 
        interstate, or local water pollution law with respect to any 
        act or omission within the scope of the official duties of the 
        agent, employee, or officer.
          ``(8) Criminal sanctions.--An agent, employee, or officer of 
        the United States shall be subject to any criminal sanction 
        (including any fine or imprisonment) under any Federal or State 
        water pollution law, but no department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial 
        branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to any such 
        sanction.''.
  (b) Funds Collected by a State.--Section 313 (33 U.S.C. 1323) is 
further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Limitation on State Use of Funds.--Unless a State law in effect 
on the date of the enactment of this subsection or a State constitution 
requires the funds to be used in a different manner, all funds 
collected by a State from the Federal Government in penalties and fines 
imposed for the violation of a substantive or procedural requirement 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be used by a State only for 
projects designed to improve or protect the environment or to defray 
the costs of environmental protection or enforcement.''.
  (c) Enforcement.--Section 313 is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(d) Federal Facility Enforcement.--
          ``(1) Administrative enforcement by epa.--The Administrator 
        may commence an administrative enforcement action against any 
        department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, 
        legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government 
        pursuant to the enforcement authorities contained in this Act.
          ``(2) Procedure.--The Administrator shall initiate an 
        administrative enforcement action against a department, agency, 
        or instrumentality under this subsection in the same manner and 
        under the same circumstances as an action would be initiated 
        against any other person under this Act. The amount of any 
        administrative penalty imposed under this subsection shall be 
        determined in accordance with section 309(d) of this Act.
          ``(3) Voluntary settlement.--Any voluntary resolution or 
        settlement of an action under this subsection shall be set 
        forth in an administrative consent order.
          ``(4) Conferral with epa.--No administrative order issued to 
        a department, agency, or instrumentality under this section 
        shall become final until such department, agency, or 
        instrumentality has had the opportunity to confer with the 
        Administrator.''.
  (d) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--Section 313 is 
further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(e) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--Any violation 
with respect to which the Administrator has commenced and is diligently 
prosecuting an action under this subsection, or for which the 
Administrator has issued a final order and the violator has either paid 
a penalty or fine assessed under this subsection or is subject to an 
enforceable schedule of corrective actions, shall not be the subject of 
an action under section 505 of this Act. In any action under this 
subsection, any citizen may intervene as a matter of right.''.
  (e) Definition of Person.--Section 502(5) (33 U.S.C. 1362(5)) is 
amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``and 
includes any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United 
States''.
  (f) Definition of Radioactive Materials.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 
1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(24) The term `radioactive materials' includes source materials, 
special nuclear materials, and byproduct materials (as such terms are 
defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954) which are used, produced, 
or managed at facilities not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission; except that such term does not include any material which 
is discharged from a vessel covered by Executive Order 12344 (42 U.S.C. 
7158 note; relating to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program).''.
  (g) Conforming Amendments.--Section 313(b) (33 U.S.C. 1323(b)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting the following:
  ``(b) Wastewater Facilities.--
          ``(1) Cooperation for use of wastewater control systems.--'';
          (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Limitation on 
        construction.--'' before ``Construction''; and
          (3) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) 2 ems to the right.
  (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall only apply to 
violations occurring after such date of enactment.

SEC. 317. CLEAN LAKES.

  (a) Priority Lakes.--Section 314(d)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1324(d)(2)) is 
amended by inserting ``Paris Twin Lakes, Illinois; Otsego Lake, New 
York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania;'' after ``Minnesota;''.
  (b) Funding.--Section 314 (33 U.S.C. 1324) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 per fiscal year for 
each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.

SEC. 318. COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.

  Section 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting after ``(b)'' the following: ``Standard for 
        Cooling Water Intake Structures.--'';
          (2) by inserting before ``Any'' the following: ``(1) In 
        general.--'';
          (3) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph 
        (2) of this section, and moving such paragraph 2 ems to the 
        right; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) New point source considerations.--In establishing a 
        standard referred to in paragraph (1) for cooling water intake 
        structures located at new point sources, the Administrator 
        shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
                  ``(A) The relative technological, engineering, and 
                economic feasibility of possible technologies or 
                techniques for minimizing any such adverse 
                environmental impacts.
                  ``(B) The relative technological, engineering, and 
                economic feasibility of possible site locations, intake 
                structure designs, and cooling water flow techniques.
                  ``(C) The relative environmental, social, and 
                economic costs and benefits of possible technologies, 
                techniques, site locations, intake structure designs, 
                and cooling water flow techniques.
                  ``(D) The projected useful life of the new point 
                source.
          ``(3) Existing point sources.--For existing point sources, 
        the Administrator may require the use of best technology 
        available in the case of existing cooling water intake 
        structures if the Administrator determines such structures are 
        having or could have a significant adverse impact on the 
        aquatic environment. In establishing a standard referred to in 
        paragraph (1) for such existing point sources, the 
        Administrator shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
                  ``(A) The relative technological, engineering, and 
                economic feasibility of reasonably available retrofit 
                technologies or techniques for minimizing any such 
                adverse environmental impacts.
                  ``(B) Other mitigation measures for offsetting the 
                anticipated adverse environmental impacts resulting 
                from the withdrawal of cooling water.
                  ``(C) Relative environmental, social, and economic 
                costs and benefits of possible retrofit technologies, 
                techniques, and mitigation measures.
                  ``(D) The projected remaining useful life of the 
                existing point source.
          ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
        definitions apply:
                  ``(A) New point source.--The term `new point source' 
                means any point source the construction of which will 
                commence after the publication of proposed regulations 
                prescribing a standard for intake structures that will 
                be applicable to such source if such standard is 
                promulgated in accordance with paragraph (2).
                  ``(B) Existing point source.--The term `existing 
                point source' means any point source that is not a new 
                point source.''.

SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  (a) State Assessment Report.--
          (1) Contents.--Section 319(a)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1329(a)(1)(C)) 
        is amended by striking ``best management practices and''.
          (2) Information used in preparation.--Section 319(a)(2) is 
        amended--
                  (A) by inserting ``, reviewing, and revising'' after 
                ``developing''; and
                  (B) by striking ``section'' the first place it 
                appears and inserting ``subsection''.
          (3) Review and revision.--Section 319(a) is amended by adding 
        at the end the following:
          ``(3) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months after 
        the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
        1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the State shall review, 
        revise, and submit to the Administrator the report required by 
        this subsection.''.
  (b) State Management Program.--
          (1) Term of program.--Section 319(b)(1) is amended by 
        striking ``four'' and inserting ``5''.
          (2) Contents.--Section 319(b)(2) is amended--
                  (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                          (i) by striking ``best'';
                          (ii) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and 
                        inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(B)''; and
                          (iii) by inserting ``and measure'' after 
                        ``practice'';
                  (B) in subparagraph (B)--
                          (i) by striking ``nonregulatory or regulatory 
                        programs for enforcement,'' and inserting ``one 
                        or more of the following: voluntary programs, 
                        incentive-based programs, regulatory programs, 
                        enforceable policies and mechanisms, State 
                        management programs approved under section 306 
                        of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,''; 
                        and
                          (ii) by striking ``achieve implementation'' 
                        and all that follows before the period and 
                        inserting ``manage categories, subcategories, 
                        or particular nonpoint sources to the degree 
                        necessary to provide for reasonable further 
                        progress toward the goal of attaining water 
                        quality standards within 15 years of approval 
                        of the State program for those waters 
                        identified under subsection (a)(1)(A)'';
                  (C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
                following:
                  ``(C) A schedule containing interim goals and 
                milestones for making reasonable progress toward the 
                attainment of standards, which may be demonstrated by 
                one or any combination of the following: improvements 
                in water quality (including biological indicators), 
                documented implementation of voluntary nonpoint source 
                control practices and measures, and adoption of 
                enforceable policies and mechanisms.'';
                  (D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``A certification 
                of'' and inserting ``After the date of the enactment of 
                the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, a certification 
                by''; and
                  (E) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(G) A description of the monitoring or other 
                assessment which will be carried out under the program 
                for the purposes of monitoring and assessing the 
                effectiveness of the program, including the attainment 
                of interim goals and milestones.
                  ``(H) An identification of activities on Federal 
                lands in the State that are inconsistent with the State 
                management program.
                  ``(I) An identification of goals and milestones for 
                progress in attaining water quality standards, 
                including a projected date for attaining such standards 
                as expeditiously as practicable but not later than 15 
                years after the date of approval of the State program 
                for each of the waters listed pursuant to subsection 
                (a).''.
          (3) Utilization of local and private experts.--Section 
        319(b)(3) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
        the following: ``, including academic institutions, private 
        industry experts, and other individual experts in water 
        resource conservation and planning''.
          (4) New technologies; use of resources; agricultural 
        programs.--Section 319(b) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:
          ``(5) Recognition of new technologies.--In developing and 
        implementing a management program under this subsection, a 
        State may recognize and utilize new practices, technologies, 
        processes, products, and other alternatives.
          ``(6) Efficient and effective use of resources.--In 
        developing and implementing a management program under this 
        subsection, a State may recognize and provide for a methodology 
        which takes into account situations in which management 
        measures used to control one pollutant have an adverse impact 
        with respect to another pollutant. The methodology should 
        encourage the balanced combination of measures which best 
        address the various impairments on the watershed or site.
          ``(7) Recognition of agricultural programs.--Any agricultural 
        producer who has voluntarily developed and is implementing an 
        approved whole farm or ranch natural resources management plan 
        shall be considered to be in compliance with the requirements 
        of a State program developed under this section--
                  ``(A) if such plan has been developed under a program 
                subject to a memorandum of agreement between the Chief 
                of the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the 
                Governor, or their respective designees; and
                  ``(B) if such memorandum of agreement specifies--
                          ``(i) the scope and content of the Natural 
                        Resources Conservation Service program (not an 
                        individual farm or ranch plan) in the State or 
                        regions of the State;
                          ``(ii) the terms of approval, implementation, 
                        and duration of a voluntary farm or ranch plan 
                        for agricultural producers;
                          ``(iii) the responsibilities for assessing 
                        implementation of voluntary whole farm and 
                        ranch natural resource management plans; and
                          ``(iv) the duration of such memorandum of 
                        agreement.
        At a minimum, such memorandum of agreement shall be reviewed 
        and may be revised every 5 years, as part of the State review 
        of its management program under this section.''.
  (c) Submission of Management Programs.--Paragraph (2) of section 
319(c) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(2) Time period for submission of management programs.--
        Each management program shall be submitted to the Administrator 
        within 30 months of the issuance by the Administrator of the 
        final guidance under subsection (o) and every 5 years 
        thereafter. Each program submission after the initial 
        submission following the date of the enactment of the Clean 
        Water Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration of 
        reasonable further progress toward the goal of attaining water 
        quality standards within 15 years of approval of the State 
        program, including documentation of the degree to which the 
        State has achieved the interim goals and milestones contained 
        in the previous program submission. Such demonstration shall 
        take into account the adequacy of Federal funding under this 
        section.''.
  (d) Approval and Disapproval of Reports and Management Programs.--
          (1) Deadline.--Section 319(d)(1) is amended by inserting ``or 
        revised report'' after ``any report''.
          (2) Disapproval.--Section 319(d)(2) is amended--
                  (A) in subparagraph (B) by inserting before the 
                semicolon the following: ``; except that such program 
                or portion shall not be disapproved solely because the 
                program or portion does not include enforceable 
                policies or mechanisms'';
                  (B) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``are not 
                adequate'' and all that follows before the semicolon 
                and inserting the following: ``will not result in 
                reasonable further progress toward the attainment of 
                applicable water quality standards under section 303 as 
                expeditiously as possible but not later than 15 years 
                after approval of the State program''; and
                  (C) in the text following subparagraph (D)--
                          (i) by striking ``3 months'' and inserting 
                        ``6 months''; and
                          (ii) by inserting ``or portion thereof'' 
                        before ``within three months of receipt''.
          (3) Failure to submit report.--Section 319(d)(3) is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``the report'' and inserting ``a 
                report or revised report'';
                  (B) by striking ``30 months'' and inserting ``18 
                months''; and
                  (C) by striking ``of the enactment of this section'' 
                and inserting ``on which such report is required to be 
                submitted under subsection (a)''.
          (4) Program management by the administrator.--Section 319(d) 
        is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(4) Failure of state to submit program.--
                  ``(A) Program management by the administrator.--If a 
                State fails to submit a management program or revised 
                management program under subsection (b) or the 
                Administrator disapproves such management program, the 
                Administrator shall prepare and implement a management 
                program for controlling pollution added from nonpoint 
                sources to the navigable waters within the State and 
                improving the quality of such waters in accordance with 
                subsection (b).
                  ``(B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator 
                intends to disapprove a program submitted by a State, 
                the Administrator shall first notify the Governor of 
                the State in writing of the modifications necessary to 
                meet the requirements of this section. The 
                Administrator shall provide adequate public notice and 
                an opportunity for a public hearing for all interested 
                parties.
                  ``(C) State revision of its program.--If, after 
                taking into account the level of funding actually 
                provided as compared with the level authorized under 
                subsection (j), the Administrator determines that a 
                State has failed to demonstrate reasonable further 
                progress toward the attainment of water quality 
                standards as required, the State shall revise its 
                program within 12 months of that determination in a 
                manner sufficient to achieve attainment of applicable 
                water quality standards by the deadline established by 
                this Act. If a State fails to make such a program 
                revision or the Administrator disapproves such a 
                revision, the Administrator shall prepare and implement 
                a nonpoint source management program for the State.''.
  (e) Technical Assistance.--Section 319(f) is amended by inserting 
``and implementing'' after ``developing''.
  (f) Grant Program.--
          (1) In general.--Section 319(h)(1) is amended--
                  (A) by amending the paragraph heading to read as 
                follows: ``Grants for preparation and implementation of 
                reports and management programs.--'';
                  (B) by striking ``for which a report submitted under 
                subsection (a) and a management program submitted under 
                subsection (b) is approved under this section'';
                  (C) by striking ``the Administrator shall make 
                grants'' and inserting ``the Administrator may make 
                grants under this subsection'';
                  (D) by striking ``under this subsection to such 
                State'' and inserting ``to such State'';
                  (E) by striking ``implementing such management 
                program'' and inserting ``preparing a report under 
                subsection (a) and in preparing and implementing a 
                management program under subsection (b)'';
                  (F) by inserting after the first sentence the 
                following: ``Grants for implementation of such 
                management program may be made only after such report 
                and management program are approved under this 
                section.''; and
                  (G) by adding at the end the following: ``The 
                Administrator is authorized to provide funds to a State 
                if necessary to implement an approved portion of a 
                State program or, with the approval of the Governor of 
                the State, to implement a component of a federally 
                established program. The Administrator may continue to 
                make grants to any State with a program approved on the 
                day before the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
                Amendments of 1995 until the Administrator withdraws 
                the approval of such program or the State fails to 
                submit a revision of such program in accordance with 
                subsection (c)(2).''.
          (2) Federal share.--Section 319(h)(3) is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``management program implemented'' 
                and inserting ``report prepared and management program 
                prepared and implemented'';
                  (B) by striking ``60 percent'' and inserting ``75 
                percent'';
                  (C) by striking ``implementing such management 
                program'' and inserting ``preparing such report and 
                preparing and implementing such management program''; 
                and
                  (D) by inserting ``of program implementation'' after 
                ``non-Federal share''.
          (3) Limitation on grant amounts.--Section 319(h)(4) is 
        amended--
                  (A) by inserting before the first sentence the 
                following: ``The Administrator shall establish, after 
                consulting with the States, maximum and minimum grants 
                for any fiscal year to promote equity between States 
                and effective nonpoint source management.''; and
                  (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The minimum 
                percentage of funds allocated to each State shall be 
                0.5 percent of the amount appropriated.''.
          (4) Allocation of grant funds.--Paragraph (5) of section 
        319(h) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(5) Allocation of grant funds.--Grants under this section 
        shall be allocated to States with approved programs in a fair 
        and equitable manner and be based upon rules and regulations 
        promulgated by the Administrator which shall take into account 
        the extent and nature of the nonpoint sources of pollution in 
        each State and other relevant factors.''.
          (5) Use of funds.--Paragraph (7) of section 319(h) is amended 
        to read as follows:
          ``(7) Use of funds.--A State may use grants made available to 
        the State pursuant to this section for activities relating to 
        nonpoint source water pollution control, including--
                  ``(A) providing financial assistance with respect to 
                those activities whose principal purpose is protecting 
                and improving water quality;
                  ``(B) assistance related to the cost of preparing or 
                implementing the State management program;
                  ``(C) providing incentive grants to individuals to 
                implement a site-specific water quality plan in amounts 
                not to exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project 
                from all Federal sources;
                  ``(D) land acquisition or conservation easements 
                consistent with a site-specific water quality plan; and
                  ``(E) restoring and maintaining the chemical, 
                physical, and biological integrity of urban and rural 
                waters and watersheds (including restoration and 
                maintenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous 
                population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, aquatic 
                and riparian vegetation, and recreational activities in 
                and on the water) and protecting designated uses, 
                including fishing, swimming, and drinking water 
                supply.''.
          (6) Compliance with state management program.--Paragraph (8) 
        of section 319(h) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(8) Compliance with state management program.--In any 
        fiscal year for which the Administrator determines that a State 
        has not made satisfactory progress in the preceding fiscal year 
        in meeting the schedule specified for such State under 
        subsection (b)(2)(C), the Administrator is authorized to 
        withhold grants pursuant to this section in whole or in part to 
        the State after adequate written notice is provided to the 
        Governor of the State.''.
          (7) Allotment study.--Section 319(h) is amended by adding at 
        the end the following:
          ``(13) Allotment study.--
                  ``(A) Study.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
                the States, shall conduct a study of whether the 
                allocation of funds under paragraph (5) appropriately 
                reflects the needs and costs of nonpoint source control 
                measures for different nonpoint source categories and 
                subcategories and of options for better reflecting such 
                needs and costs in the allotment of funds.
                  ``(B) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date 
                of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, 
                the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report 
                on the results of the study conducted under this 
                subsection, together with recommendations.''.
  (g) Grants for Protecting Ground Water Quality.--Section 319(i)(3) is 
amended by striking ``$150,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
  (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 319(j) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$130,000,000'';
          (2) by inserting after ``1991'' the following: ``, such sums 
        as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, 
        $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $150,000,000 for fiscal year 
        1997, $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 1999, and $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2000''; and
          (3) by striking ``$7,500,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.
  (i) Consistency of Other Programs and Projects With Management 
Programs.--Section 319(k) (33 U.S.C. 1329(k)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``allow States to review'' and inserting 
        ``require coordination with States in'';
          (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
        ``and the State watershed management program''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following: ``Federal agencies 
        that own or manage land, or issue licenses for activities that 
        cause nonpoint source pollution from such land, shall 
        coordinate their nonpoint source control measures with the 
        State nonpoint source management program and the State 
        watershed management program. A Federal agency and the Governor 
        of an affected State shall enter into a memorandum of 
        understanding to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. Such 
        a memorandum of understanding shall not relieve the Federal 
        agency of the agency's obligation to comply with its own 
        mandates.''.
  (j) Reports of the Administrator.--
          (1) Biennial reports.--Section 319(m)(1) is amended--
                  (A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``Annual'' 
                and inserting ``Biennial''; and
                  (B) by striking ``1988, and each January 1'' and 
                inserting ``1995, and biennially''.
          (2) Contents.--Section 319(m)(2) is amended--
                  (A) by striking the paragraph heading and all that 
                follows before ``at a minimum'' and inserting 
                ``Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph 
                (1),'';
                  (B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``best management 
                practices'' and inserting ``measures''; and
                  (C) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``best management 
                practices'' and inserting ``the measures provided by 
                States under subsection (b)''.
  (k) Set Aside for Administrative Personnel.--Section 319(n) is 
amended by striking ``less'' and inserting ``more''.
  (l) Guidance on Model Management Practices and Measures.--Section 319 
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(o) Guidance on Model Management Practices and Measures.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall publish guidance 
        to identify model management practices and measures which may 
        be undertaken, at the discretion of the State or appropriate 
        entity, under a management program established pursuant to this 
        section.
          ``(2) Consultation; public notice and comment.--The 
        Administrator shall develop the model management practices and 
        measures under paragraph (1) in consultation with the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other appropriate 
        Federal and State departments and agencies, and academic 
        institutions, private industry experts, and other individual 
        experts in water conservation and planning, and after providing 
        notice and opportunity for public comment.
          ``(3) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish proposed 
        guidance under this subsection not later than 6 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this subsection and shall publish 
        final guidance under this subsection not later than 18 months 
        after such date of enactment. The Administrator shall 
        periodically review and revise the final guidance at least once 
        every 3 years after its publication.
          ``(4) Model management practices and measures defined.--For 
        the purposes of this subsection, the term `model management 
        practices and measures' means economically achievable measures 
        for the control of the addition of pollutants from nonpoint 
        sources of pollution which reflect the greatest degree of 
        pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the 
        best available nonpoint pollution control practices, 
        technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or 
        other alternatives. The Administrator may distinguish among 
        classes, types, and sizes within any category of nonpoint 
        sources.''.
  (m) Inadequate Funding.--Section 319 is further amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(p) Inadequate Funding.--For each fiscal year beginning after the 
date of the enactment of this subsection for which the total of amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section are less than the total of 
amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to subsection (j), the 
deadline for compliance with any requirement of this section, including 
any deadline relating to assessment reports or State program 
implementation or monitoring efforts, shall be postponed by 1 year, 
unless the Administrator and the State jointly certify that the amounts 
appropriated are sufficient to meet the requirements of this 
section.''.
  (n) Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.--
          (1) Repeal.--Section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget 
        Reconciliation Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1455b) is repealed.
          (2) Inclusion of coastal management provisions in nonpoint 
        program.--Section 319 is amended--
                  (A) in subsection (a)(1)--
                          (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of 
                        subparagraph (C);
                          (ii) by striking the period at the end of 
                        subparagraph (D) and inserting ``(including 
                        State management programs approved under 
                        section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
                        of 1972); and''; and
                          (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(E) identifies critical areas, giving consideration 
                to the variety of natural, commercial, recreational, 
                ecological, industrial, and aesthetic resources of 
                immediate and potential value to the present and future 
                of the Nation's waters in the Coastal Zone.'';
                  (B) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting ``any 
                management program of the State approved under section 
                306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,'' after 
                ``314,'';
                  (C) in subsection (b)(2) by adding after subparagraph 
                (I), as added by subsection (b) of this section, the 
                following:
                  ``(J) For coastal areas, the identification of, and 
                continuing process for identifying, land uses which 
                individually or cumulatively may cause or contribute 
                significantly to degradation of--
                          ``(i) those coastal waters where there is a 
                        failure to attain or maintain applicable water 
                        quality standards or protected designated uses, 
                        as determined by the State pursuant to the 
                        State's water quality planning processes or 
                        watershed planning efforts; and
                          ``(ii) those coastal waters that are 
                        threatened by reasonably foreseeable increases 
                        in pollution loadings.''; and
                  (D) in subsection (c)(1) by inserting ``or coastal 
                zone management agencies'' after ``planning agencies''.
  (o) Agricultural Inputs.--Section 319 is further amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(q) Agricultural Inputs.--For the purposes of this Act, any land 
application of livestock manure shall not be considered a point source 
and shall be subject to enforcement only under this section.''.
  (p) Purpose.--Section 319 (33 U.S.C. 1329) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(r) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist States in 
addressing nonpoint sources of pollution where necessary to achieve the 
goals and requirements of this Act. It is recognized that State 
nonpoint source programs need to be built upon a foundation that 
voluntary initiatives represent the approach most likely to succeed in 
achieving the objectives of this Act.''.

SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

  (a) Technical Amendment.--Section 320(a)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C. 
1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
                  ``(B) Priority consideration.--The Administrator 
                shall give priority consideration under this section to 
                Long Island Sound, New York and Connecticut; 
                Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, 
                Massachusetts; Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts 
                (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor); Puget 
                Sound, Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York 
                and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; 
                Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; Albemarle Sound, North 
                Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay, 
                California; Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston 
                Bay, Texas; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, 
                Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Charlotte 
                Harbor, Florida; Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; and Peconic 
                Bay, New York.''.
  (b) Grants.--Section 320(g)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)(2)) is amended by 
inserting ``and implementation monitoring'' after ``development''.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) (33 U.S.C. 
1330(i)) is amended by striking ``1987'' and all that follows through 
``1991'' and inserting the following: ``1987 through 1991, such sums as 
may be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and $19,000,000 
per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.

SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  (a) Establishment.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  ``(a) State Watershed Management Program.--
          ``(1) Submission of program to administrator.--A State, at 
        any time, may submit a watershed management program to the 
        Administrator for approval.
          ``(2) Approval.--If the Administrator does not disapprove a 
        State watershed management program within 180 days of its 
        submittal or 240 days of a request for a public hearing 
        pursuant to paragraph (3) with respect to the program, 
        whichever is later, such program shall be deemed approved for 
        the purposes of this section. The Administrator shall approve 
        the program if the program includes, at a minimum, the 
        following elements:
                  ``(A) The identification of the State agency with 
                primary responsibility for overseeing and approving 
                watershed management plans in general.
                  ``(B) The description of any responsible entities 
                (including any appropriate State agency or substate 
                agency) to be utilized in implementing the program and 
                a description of their responsibilities.
                  ``(C) A description of the scope of the program. In 
                establishing the scope of the program, the State may 
                address one or more watersheds, or pollutants, 
                concurrently or sequentially. The scope of the State 
                program may expand over time with respect to the 
                watersheds, pollutants, and factors to be addressed 
                under the program. In developing the State program, the 
                State shall take into account all regional and local 
                government watershed management programs that are 
                consistent with the proposed State program and shall 
                consult with the regional and local governments that 
                developed such programs. The State shall consider 
                recommendations from units of general purpose 
                government, special purpose districts, local water 
                suppliers, and appropriate water management agencies in 
                the development and scope of the program.
                  ``(D) Provisions for carrying out an analysis, 
                consistent with the established scope of the program, 
                of the problems within each watershed covered under the 
                program.
                  ``(E) An identification of watershed management units 
                for which management plans will be developed, taking 
                into consideration those waters where water quality is 
                threatened or impaired or otherwise in need of special 
                protection. A watershed management unit identified 
                under the program may include waters and associated 
                land areas in more than 1 State if the Governors of the 
                States affected jointly designate the watershed 
                management unit and may include waters and associated 
                lands managed or owned by the Federal Government.
                  ``(F) A description of the activities required of 
                responsible entities (as specified under subsection 
                (e)(1)) and a description of the watershed plan 
                approval process of the State.
                  ``(G) Documentation of the public participation in 
                development of the program and description of the 
                procedures that will be used for public participation 
                in the development and implementation of watershed 
                plans.
                  ``(H) The identification of goals that will be 
                pursued in each watershed, including attainment of 
                State water quality standards (including site-specific 
                water quality standards) and the goals and objectives 
                of this Act.
                  ``(I) An exclusion from the program of federally 
                approved activities with respect to linear utility 
                facilities, such as natural gas pipelines if such 
                facilities extend to multiple watersheds and result in 
                temporary or de minimis impacts.
                  ``(J) A description of the process for consideration 
                of and achieving consistency with the purposes of 
                sections 319 and 322.
          ``(3) Disapproval process.--If the Administrator intends to 
        disapprove a program of a State submitted under this 
        subsection, the Administrator shall by a written notification 
        advise the State of the intent to disapprove and the reasons 
        for disapproval. If, within 30 days of receipt of such notice, 
        a State so requests, the Administrator shall conduct a public 
        hearing in the State on the intent to disapprove and the 
        reasons for such disapproval. A State may resubmit a revised 
        program that addresses the reasons contained in the 
        notification. If a State requests a public hearing, the 
        Administrator shall conduct the hearing in that State and issue 
        a final determination within 240 days of receipt of the State 
        watershed management program submittal.
          ``(4) Modification of program.--Each State with a watershed 
        management program that has been approved by the Administrator 
        under this section may, at any time, modify the watershed 
        management program. Any such modification shall be submitted to 
        the Administrator and shall remain in effect unless and until 
        the Administrator determines that the modified program no 
        longer meets the requirements of this section. In such event, 
        the provisions of paragraph (3) shall apply.
          ``(5) Status reports.--Each State with a watershed management 
        program that has been approved by the Administrator pursuant to 
        this subsection shall, not later than 1 year after the date of 
        approval, and annually thereafter, submit to the Administrator 
        an annual watershed program summary status report that includes 
        descriptions of any modifications to the program. The status 
        report shall include a listing of requests made for watershed 
        plan development and a listing of plans prepared and submitted 
        by local or regional entities and the actions taken by the 
        State on such plans including the reasons for those actions. In 
        consultation and coordination with the Administrator, a State 
        may use the report to satisfy, in full or in part, any 
        reporting requirements under sections 106, 303(d), 305(b), 314, 
        319, 320, 322, and 604(b).
  ``(b) Watershed Area in 2 or More States.--If a watershed management 
unit is designated to include land areas in more than 1 State, the 
Governors of States having jurisdiction over any lands within the 
watershed management unit shall jointly determine the responsible 
entity or entities.
  ``(c) Eligible Watershed Management and Planning Activities.--
          ``(1) In general.--In addition to activities eligible to 
        receive assistance under other sections of this Act as of the 
        date of the enactment of this subsection, the following 
        watershed management activities conducted by or on behalf of 
        the States pursuant to a watershed management program that is 
        approved by the Administrator under this section shall be 
        considered to be eligible to receive assistance under sections 
        106, 205(j), 319(h), 320, and 604(b):
                  ``(A) Characterizing the waters and land uses.
                  ``(B) Identifying and evaluating problems within the 
                watershed.
                  ``(C) Selecting short-term and long-term goals for 
                watershed management.
                  ``(D) Developing and implementing water quality 
                standards, including site-specific water quality 
                standards.
                  ``(E) Developing and implementing measures and 
                practices to meet identified goals.
                  ``(F) Identifying and coordinating projects and 
                activities necessary to restore or maintain water 
                quality or other related environmental objectives 
                within the watershed.
                  ``(G) Identifying the appropriate institutional 
                arrangements to carry out a watershed management plan 
                that has been approved or adopted by the State under 
                this section.
                  ``(H) Updating the plan.
                  ``(I) Conducting training and public participation 
                activities.
                  ``(J) Research to study benefits of existing 
                watershed program plans and particular aspects of the 
                plans.
                  ``(K) Implementing any other activity considered 
                appropriate by the Administrator or the Governor of a 
                State with an approved program.
          ``(2) Factors to be considered.--In selecting watershed 
        management activities to receive assistance pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), the following factors shall be considered:
                  ``(A) Whether or not the applicant has demonstrated 
                success in addressing water quality problems with 
                broadbased regional support, including public and 
                private sources.
                  ``(B) Whether the activity will promote watershed 
                problem prioritization.
                  ``(C) Whether or not the applicant can demonstrate an 
                ability to use Federal resources to leverage non-
                Federal public and private monetary and in-kind support 
                from voluntary contributions, including matching and 
                cost sharing incentives.
                  ``(D) Whether or not the applicant proposes to use 
                existing public and private programs to facilitate 
                water quality improvement with the assistance to be 
                provided pursuant to paragraph (1).
                  ``(E) Whether or not such assistance will be used to 
                promote voluntary activities, including private 
                wetlands restoration, mitigation banking, and pollution 
                prevention to achieve water quality standards.
                  ``(F) Whether or not such assistance will be used to 
                market mechanisms to enhance existing programs.
  ``(d) Public Participation.--Each State shall establish procedures to 
encourage the public to participate in its program and in developing 
and implementing comprehensive watershed management plans under this 
section. A State watershed management program shall include a process 
for public involvement in watershed management, to the maximum extent 
practicable, including the formation and participation of public 
advisory groups during State watershed program development. States must 
provide adequate public notice and an opportunity to comment on the 
State watershed program prior to submittal of the program to the 
Administrator for approval.
  ``(e) Approved or State-Adopted Plans.--
          ``(1) Requirements.--A State with a watershed management 
        program that has been approved by the Administrator under this 
        section may approve or adopt a watershed management plan if the 
        plan satisfies the following conditions:
                  ``(A) If the watershed includes waters that are not 
                meeting water quality standards at the time of 
                submission, the plan--
                          ``(i) identifies the objectives of the plan, 
                        including, at a minimum, State water quality 
                        standards (including site-specific water 
                        quality standards) and goals and objectives 
                        under this Act;
                          ``(ii) identifies pollutants, sources, 
                        activities, and any other factors causing the 
                        impairment of the waters;
                          ``(iii) identifies cost effective actions 
                        that are necessary to achieve the objectives of 
                        the plan, including reduction of pollutants to 
                        achieve any allocated load reductions 
                        consistent with the requirements of section 
                        303(d), and the priority for implementing the 
                        actions;
                          ``(iv) contains an implementation schedule 
                        with milestones and the identification of 
                        persons responsible for implementing the 
                        actions;
                          ``(v) demonstrates that water quality 
                        standards and other goals and objectives of 
                        this Act will be attained as expeditiously as 
                        practicable but not later than any applicable 
                        deadline under this Act;
                          ``(vi) contains documentation of the public 
                        participation in the development of the plan 
                        and a description of the public participation 
                        process that will be used during the plan 
                        implementation;
                          ``(vii) specifies a process to monitor and 
                        evaluate progress toward meeting of the goals 
                        of the plan; and
                          ``(viii) specifies a process to revise the 
                        plan as necessary.
                  ``(B) For waters in the watershed attaining water 
                quality standards at the time of submission (including 
                threatened waters), the plan identifies the projects 
                and activities necessary to maintain water quality 
                standards and attain or maintain other goals after the 
                date of approval or adoption of the plan.
          ``(2) Terms of approved or adopted plan.--Each plan that is 
        approved or adopted by a State under this subsection shall be 
        effective for a period of not more than 10 years and include a 
        planning and implementation schedule with milestones within 
        that period. A revised and updated plan may be approved or 
        adopted by the State prior to the expiration of the period 
        specified in the plan pursuant to the same conditions and 
        requirements that apply to an initial plan for a watershed 
        approved under this subsection.
  ``(f) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this section, the Administrator, after consultation with 
the States and other interested parties, shall issue guidance on 
provisions that States may consider for inclusion in watershed 
management programs and State-approved or State-adopted watershed 
management plans under this section.
  ``(g) Pollutant Transfer Opportunities.--
          ``(1) Pollutant transfer pilot projects.--Under an approved 
        watershed management program, any discharger or source may 
        apply to a State for approval to offset the impact of its 
        discharge or release of a pollutant by entering into 
        arrangements, including the payment of funds, for the 
        implementation of controls or measures by another discharger or 
        source through a pollution reduction credits trading program 
        established as part of the watershed management plan. The State 
        may approve such a request if appropriate safeguards are 
        included to ensure compliance with technology based controls 
        and to protect the quality of receiving waters.
          ``(2) Incentive grants.--The Administrator shall allocate 
        sums made available by appropriations to carry out pollution 
        reduction credits trading programs in selected watersheds 
        throughout the country.
          ``(3) Report.--Not later than 36 months after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
        Congress a report on the results of the program conducted under 
        this subsection.''.
  (b) Incentives for Watershed Management.--
          (1) Point source permits.--Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is 
        further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(r) Watershed Management.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, a permit may be issued under this section with a 
        limitation that does not meet applicable water quality 
        standards if--
                  ``(A) the receiving water is in a watershed with a 
                watershed management plan that has been approved 
                pursuant to section 321;
                  ``(B) the plan includes assurances that water quality 
                standards will be met within the watershed by a 
                specified date; and
                  ``(C) the point source does not have a history of 
                significant noncompliance with its effluent limitations 
                under a permit issued under this section, as determined 
                by the Administrator or a State with authority to issue 
                permits under this section.
          ``(2) Synchronized permit terms.--Notwithstanding subsection 
        (b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under this section may 
        be extended for an additional period if the discharge is 
        located in a watershed management unit for which a watershed 
        management plan will be developed pursuant to section 321. 
        Permits extended under this paragraph shall be synchronized 
        with the approval of the watershed management plan of a State 
        adopted pursuant to section 321.''.
          (2) Multipurpose grants.--
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator may provide 
                assistance to a State with a watershed management 
                program that has been approved by the Administrator 
                under section 321 in the form of a multipurpose grant 
                that would provide for single application, work plan 
                and review, matching, oversight, and end-of-year 
                closeout requirements for grant funding under sections 
                104(b)(3), 104(g), 106, 314(b), 319, 320, and 604(b) of 
                the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
                  (B) Terms.--The Administrator may attach terms that 
                shall apply for more than 1 year to grants made 
                pursuant to this paragraph. A State that receives a 
                grant under this paragraph may focus activities funded 
                under the provisions referred to in subparagraph (A) on 
                a priority basis in a manner consistent with watershed 
                management plans approved by the State under section 
                321(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
          (3) Planning.--Section 604(b) (33 U.S.C. 1384(b)) is amended 
        by adding at the end the following: ``In any fiscal year in 
        which a State is implementing a State watershed management 
        program approved under section 321, the State may reserve up to 
        an additional 2 percent of the sums allotted to the State for 
        such fiscal year for development of watershed management plans 
        under such program or $200,000, whichever is greater, if 50 
        percent of the amount reserved under this sentence will be made 
        available to local entities.''.

SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  (a) State Programs.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is further 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist States in 
the development and implementation of stormwater control programs in an 
expeditious and cost effective manner so as to enable the goals and 
requirements of this Act to be met in each State no later than 15 years 
after the date of approval of the stormwater management program of the 
State. It is recognized that State stormwater management programs need 
to be built on a foundation that voluntary pollution prevention 
initiatives represent an approach most likely to succeed in achieving 
the objectives of this Act.
  ``(b) State Assessment Reports.--
          ``(1) Contents.--After notice and opportunity for public 
        comment, the Governor of each State, consistent with or as part 
        of the assessment required by section 319, shall prepare and 
        submit to the Administrator for approval, a report which--
                  ``(A) identifies those navigable waters within the 
                State which, without additional action to control 
                pollution from stormwater discharges, cannot reasonably 
                be expected to attain or maintain applicable water 
                quality standards or the goals and requirements of this 
                Act;
                  ``(B) identifies those categories and subcategories 
                of stormwater discharges that add significant pollution 
                to each portion of the navigable waters identified 
                under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute to 
                such portion not meeting such water quality standards 
                or such goals and requirements;
                  ``(C) describes the process, including 
                intergovernmental coordination and public 
                participation, for identifying measures to control 
                pollution from each category and subcategory of 
                stormwater discharges identified in subparagraph (B) 
                and to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
                level of pollution resulting from such discharges; and
                  ``(D) identifies and describes State, local, and as 
                may be appropriate, industrial programs for controlling 
                pollution added from stormwater discharges to, and 
                improving the quality of, each such portion of the 
                navigable waters.
          ``(2) Information used in preparation.--In developing, 
        reviewing, and revising the report required by this subsection, 
        the State--
                  ``(A) may rely upon information developed pursuant to 
                sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), 314, 319, 320, 
                and 321 and subsection (h) of this section, information 
                developed from the group stormwater permit application 
                process in effect under section 402(p) of this Act on 
                the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, 
                and such other information as the State determines is 
                appropriate; and
                  ``(B) may utilize appropriate elements of the waste 
                treatment management plans developed pursuant to 
                sections 208(b) and 303, to the extent such elements 
                are consistent with and fulfill the requirements of 
                this section.
          ``(3) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months after 
        the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
        1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the State shall review, 
        revise, and submit to the Administrator the report required by 
        this subsection.
  ``(c) State Management Programs.--
          ``(1) In general.--In substantial consultation with local 
        governments and after notice and opportunity for public 
        comment, the Governor of each State for the State or in 
        combination with the Governors of adjacent States shall prepare 
        and submit to the Administrator for approval a stormwater 
        management program based on available information which the 
        State proposes to implement in the first 5 fiscal years 
        beginning after the date of submission of such management 
        program for controlling pollution added from stormwater 
        discharges to the navigable waters within the boundaries of the 
        State and improving the quality of such waters.
          ``(2) Specific contents.--Each management program proposed 
        for implementation under this subsection shall include the 
        following:
                  ``(A) Identification of model management practices 
                and measures.--Identification of the model management 
                practices and measures which will be undertaken to 
                reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category 
                or subcategory of stormwater discharges designated 
                under subsection (b)(1)(B), taking into account the 
                impact of the practice and measure on ground water 
                quality.
                  ``(B) Identification of programs and resources.--
                Identification of programs and resources necessary 
                (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory programs or 
                regulatory programs, enforceable policies and 
                mechanisms, technical assistance, financial assistance, 
                education, training, technology transfer, and 
                demonstration projects) to manage categories or 
                subcategories of stormwater discharges to the degree 
                necessary to provide for reasonable further progress 
                toward the goal of attainment of water quality 
                standards which contain the stormwater criteria 
                established under subsection (i) for designated uses of 
                receiving waters identified under subsection (b)(1)(A) 
                taking into consideration specific watershed 
                conditions, by not later than the last day of the 15-
                year period beginning on the date of approval of the 
                State program.
                  ``(C) Program for industrial, commercial, oil, gas, 
                and mining discharges.--A program for categories or 
                subcategories of industrial, commercial, oil, gas, and 
                mining stormwater discharges identified under 
                subsection (b)(1)(B) for the implementation of 
                management practices, measures, and programs identified 
                under subparagraphs (A) and (B). The program shall 
                include each of the following:
                          ``(i) Voluntary activities.--Voluntary 
                        stormwater pollution prevention activities for 
                        categories and subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges that are not contaminated by contact 
                        with material handling equipment or activities, 
                        heavy industrial machinery, raw materials, 
                        intermediate products, finished products, 
                        byproducts, or waste products at the site of 
                        the industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining 
                        activity. Such discharges may have incidental 
                        contact with buildings or motor vehicles.
                          ``(ii) Enforceable plans.--Enforceable 
                        stormwater pollution prevention plans meeting 
                        the requirements of subsection (d) for those 
                        categories and subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges that are not described in clause 
                        (i).
                          ``(iii) General permits.--General permits for 
                        categories and subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges if the State finds, based on 
                        available information and after providing 
                        notice and an opportunity for comment, that 
                        reasonable further progress toward achieving 
                        water quality standards in receiving waters 
                        identified by the State by the date referred to 
                        in subparagraph (B) cannot be made despite 
                        implementation of voluntary activities under 
                        clause (i) or prevention plans under clause 
                        (ii) due to the presence of a pollutant or 
                        pollutants identified by the State. A facility 
                        in a category or subcategory identified by the 
                        State shall not be subject to a general permit 
                        under this clause if the facility demonstrates 
                        that stormwater discharges from the facility 
                        are not contributing to a violation of a water 
                        quality standard established for designated 
                        uses of the receiving waters and are not 
                        significantly contributing the pollutant or 
                        pollutants identified by the State with respect 
                        to the receiving waters under this clause.
                          ``(iv) Site-specific permits.--Site-specific 
                        permits for categories or subcategories of such 
                        stormwater discharges or individual facilities 
                        in such categories or subcategories if the 
                        State finds, based on available information and 
                        after providing notice and an opportunity for 
                        comment, that reasonable further progress 
                        toward achieving water quality standards in 
                        receiving waters identified by the State by the 
                        date referred to in subparagraph (B) cannot be 
                        made despite implementation of voluntary 
                        activities under clause (i) or prevention plans 
                        under clause (ii) and general permits under 
                        clause (iii) due to the presence of a pollutant 
                        or pollutants identified by the State. A 
                        facility in a category or subcategory 
                        identified by the State shall not be subject to 
                        a site-specific permit under this clause if the 
                        facility demonstrates that stormwater 
                        discharges from the facility are not 
                        contributing to a violation of a water quality 
                        standard established for designated uses of the 
                        receiving waters and are not significantly 
                        contributing the pollutant or pollutants 
                        identified by the State with respect to the 
                        receiving waters under this clause.
                          ``(v) Exemption of small businesses.--An 
                        exemption for small businesses identified under 
                        subsection (b)(1)(B) from clause (iii), 
                        relating to general permits, and clause (iv), 
                        relating to site-specific permits, unless the 
                        State finds that, without the imposition of 
                        such permits, such discharges will have a 
                        significant adverse effect on water quality.
                  ``(D) Program for municipal discharges.--A program 
                for municipal stormwater discharges identified under 
                subsection (b)(1)(B) to reduce pollutant loadings from 
                categories and subcategories of municipal stormwater 
                discharges.
                  ``(E) Program for construction activities.--A program 
                for categories and subcategories of stormwater 
                discharges from construction activities identified 
                under subsection (b)(1)(B) for implementation of 
                management practices, measures, and programs identified 
                under subparagraphs (A) and (B). In developing the 
                program, the State shall consider current State and 
                local requirements, focus on pollution prevention 
                through the use of model management practices and 
                measures, and take into account the land area disturbed 
                by the construction activities. The State may require 
                effluent limits or other numerical standards to control 
                pollutants in stormwater discharges from construction 
                activities only if the State finds, after providing 
                notice and an opportunity for comment, that such 
                standards are necessary to achieve water quality 
                standards by the date referred to in subparagraph (B).
                  ``(F) Bad actor provisions.--Provisions for taking 
                any actions deemed necessary by the State to meet the 
                goals and requirements of this section with respect to 
                dischargers which the State identifies, after notice 
                and opportunity for hearing--
                          ``(i) as having a history of stormwater 
                        noncompliance under this Act, State law, or the 
                        regulations issued thereunder or the terms and 
                        conditions of permits, orders, or 
                        administrative actions issued pursuant thereto; 
                        or
                          ``(ii) as posing an imminent threat to human 
                        health and the environment.
                  ``(G) Schedule.--A schedule containing interim goals 
                and milestones for making reasonable progress toward 
                the attainment of standards as set forth in 
                subparagraph (B) established for the designated uses of 
                receiving waters, taking into account specific 
                watershed conditions, which may be demonstrated by one 
                or any combination of improvements in water quality 
                (including biological indicators), documented 
                implementation of voluntary stormwater discharge 
                control measures, or adoption of enforceable stormwater 
                discharge control measures.
                  ``(H) Certification of adequate authority.--
                          ``(i) In general.--A certification by the 
                        Attorney General of the State or States (or the 
                        chief attorney of any State water pollution 
                        control agency that has authority under State 
                        law to make such certification) that the laws 
                        of the State or States, as the case may be, 
                        provide adequate authority to implement such 
                        management program or, if there is not such 
                        adequate authority, a list of such additional 
                        authorities as will be necessary to implement 
                        such management program.
                          ``(ii) Commitment.--A schedule for seeking, 
                        and a commitment by the State or States to 
                        seek, such additional authorities as 
                        expeditiously as practicable.
                  ``(I) Identification of federal financial assistance 
                programs.--An identification of Federal financial 
                assistance programs and Federal development projects 
                for which the State will review individual assistance 
                applications or development projects for their effect 
                on water quality pursuant to the procedures set forth 
                in Executive Order 12372 as in effect on September 17, 
                1983, to determine whether such assistance applications 
                or development projects would be consistent with the 
                program prepared under this subsection; for the 
                purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall not 
                be limited to the assistance programs or development 
                projects subject to Executive Order 12372 but may 
                include any programs listed in the most recent Catalog 
                of Federal Domestic Assistance which may have an effect 
                on the purposes and objectives of the State's 
                stormwater management program.
                  ``(J) Monitoring.--A description of the monitoring of 
                navigable waters or other assessment which will be 
                carried out under the program for the purposes of 
                monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the 
                program, including the attainment of interim goals and 
                milestones.
                  ``(K) Identification of certain inconsistent federal 
                activities.--An identification of activities on Federal 
                lands in the State that are inconsistent with the State 
                management program.
                  ``(L) Identification of goals and milestones.--An 
                identification of goals and milestones for progress in 
                attaining water quality standards, including a 
                projected date for attaining such standards as 
                expeditiously as practicable but not later than 15 
                years after the date of approval of the State program 
                for each of the waters listed pursuant to subsection 
                (b).
          ``(3) Utilization of local and private experts.--In 
        developing and implementing a management program under this 
        subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
        involve local public and private agencies and organizations 
        which have expertise in stormwater management.
          ``(4) Development on watershed basis.--A State shall, to the 
        maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a stormwater 
        management program under this subsection on a watershed-by-
        watershed basis within such State.
          ``(5) Regulations defining small businesses.--The 
        Administrator shall propose, not later than 6 months after the 
        date of the enactment of this section, and issue, not later 
        than 1 year after the date of such enactment, regulations to 
        define small businesses for purposes of this section.
  ``(d) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.--
          ``(1) Implementation deadline.--Each stormwater pollution 
        prevention plan required under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall 
        be implemented not later than 180 days after the date of its 
        development and shall be annually updated.
          ``(2) Plan contents.--Each stormwater pollution prevention 
        plan required under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall include the 
        following components:
                  ``(A) Establishment and appointment of a stormwater 
                pollution prevention team.
                  ``(B) Description of potential pollutant sources.
                  ``(C) An annual site inspection evaluation.
                  ``(D) An annual visual stormwater discharge 
                inspection.
                  ``(E) Measures and controls for reducing stormwater 
                pollution, including, at a minimum, model management 
                practices and measures that are flexible, 
                technologically feasible, and economically practicable. 
                For purposes of this paragraph, the term `model 
                management practices and measures' means preventive 
                maintenance, good housekeeping, spill prevention and 
                response, employee training, and sediment and erosion 
                control.
                  ``(F) Prevention of illegal discharges of 
                nonstormwater through stormwater outfalls.
          ``(3) Certification.--Each facility subject to subsection 
        (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall certify to the State that it has 
        implemented a stormwater pollution prevention plan or a State 
        or local equivalent and that the plan is intended to reduce 
        possible pollutants in the facility's stormwater discharges. 
        The certification must be signed by a responsible officer of 
        the facility and must be affixed to the plan subject to review 
        by the appropriate State program authority. If a facility makes 
        such a certification, such facility shall not be subject to 
        permit or permit application requirements, mandatory model 
        management practices and measures, analytical monitoring, 
        effluent limitations or other numerical standards or guidelines 
        under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii).
          ``(4) Plan adequacy.--The State stormwater management program 
        shall set forth the basis upon which the adequacy of a plan 
        prepared by a facility subject to subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) will 
        be determined. In making such determination, the State shall 
        consider benefits to the environment, physical requirements, 
        technological feasibility and economic costs, human health or 
        safety, and nature of the activity at the facility or site.
  ``(e) Administrative Provisions.--
          ``(1) Cooperation requirement.--Any report required by 
        subsection (b) and any management program and report required 
        by subsection (c) shall be developed in cooperation with local, 
        substate, regional, and interstate entities which are 
        responsible for implementing stormwater management programs.
          ``(2) Time period for submission of management programs.--
        Each management program shall be submitted to the Administrator 
        within 30 months of the issuance by the Administrator of the 
        final guidance under subsection (l) and every 5 years 
        thereafter. Each program submission after the initial 
        submission following the date of the enactment of the Clean 
        Water Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration of 
        reasonable further progress toward the goal of attaining water 
        quality standards as set forth in subsection (c)(2) established 
        for designated uses of receiving waters taking into account 
        specific watershed conditions by not later than the date 
        referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B), including a documentation 
        of the degree to which the State has achieved the interim goals 
        and milestones contained in the previous program submission. 
        Such demonstration shall take into account the adequacy of 
        Federal funding under this section.
          ``(3) Transition.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Permits, including group and 
                general permits, issued pursuant to section 402(p), as 
                in effect on the day before the date of the enactment 
                of this section, shall remain in effect until the 
                effective date of a State stormwater management program 
                under this section. Stormwater dischargers shall 
                continue to implement any stormwater management 
                practices and measures required under such permits 
                until such practices and measures are modified pursuant 
                to this subparagraph or pursuant to a State stormwater 
                management program. Prior to the effective date of a 
                State stormwater management program, stormwater 
                dischargers may submit for approval proposed revised 
                stormwater management practices and measures to the 
                State, in the case of a State with an approved program 
                under section 402, or the Administrator. Upon notice of 
                approval by the State or the Administrator, the 
                stormwater discharger shall implement the revised 
                stormwater management practices and measures which, for 
                discharges subject to subsection (c)(2)(C)(i), 
                (c)(2)(D), (c)(2)(E), or (c)(2)(F), may be voluntary 
                pollution prevention activities. A stormwater 
                discharger operating under a permit continued in effect 
                under this subparagraph shall not be subject to 
                citizens suits under section 505.
                  ``(B) New facilities.--A new nonmunicipal source of 
                stormwater discharge subject to a group or general 
                permit continued in effect under subparagraph (A) shall 
                notify the State or the Administrator, as appropriate, 
                of the source's intent to be covered by and shall 
                continue to comply with such permit. Until the 
                effective date of a State stormwater management program 
                under this section, the State may impose enforceable 
                stormwater management measures and practices on a new 
                nonmunicipal source of stormwater discharge not subject 
                to such a permit if the State finds that the stormwater 
                discharge is likely to pose an imminent threat to human 
                health and the environment or to pose significant 
                impairment of water quality standards.
                  ``(C) Special rule.--Industrial facilities included 
                in a Part 1 group stormwater permit application 
                approved by the Administrator pursuant to section 
                122.26(c)(2) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 
                as in effect on the date of the enactment of this 
                section, may, in lieu of continued operation under 
                existing permits, certify to the State or the 
                Administrator, as appropriate, that such facilities are 
                implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan 
                consistent with subsection (d). Upon such 
                certification, the facility will no longer be subject 
                to such permit.
                  ``(D) Pre-1987 permits.--Notwithstanding the repeal 
                of section 402(p) by the Clean Water Amendments Act of 
                1995 or any other amendment made to section 402 on or 
                before the date of the enactment of such Act, a 
                discharge with respect to which a permit has been 
                issued under section 402 before February 4, 1987, shall 
                not be subject to the provisions of this section.
                  ``(E) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o) shall not 
                apply to any activity carried out in accordance with 
                this paragraph.
  ``(f) Approval or Disapproval of Reports or Management Programs.--
          ``(1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 180 
        days after the date of submission to the Administrator of any 
        report or revised report or management program under this 
        section, the Administrator shall either approve or disapprove 
        such report or management program, as the case may be. The 
        Administrator may approve a portion of a management program 
        under this subsection. If the Administrator does not disapprove 
        a report, management program, or portion of a management 
        program in such 180-day period, such report, management 
        program, or portion shall be deemed approved for purposes of 
        this section.
          ``(2) Procedure for disapproval.--If, after notice and 
        opportunity for public comment and consultation with 
        appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested 
        persons, the Administrator determines that--
                  ``(A) the proposed management program or any portion 
                thereof does not meet the requirements of subsection 
                (b) of this section or is not likely to satisfy, in 
                whole or in part, the goals and requirements of this 
                Act;
                  ``(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate 
                resources are not available, to implement such program 
                or portion; or
                  ``(C) the practices and measures proposed in such 
                program or portion will not result in reasonable 
                progress toward the goal of attainment of applicable 
                water quality standards as set forth in subsection 
                (c)(2) established for designated uses of receiving 
                waters taking into consideration specific watershed 
                conditions as expeditiously as possible but not later 
                than 15 years after approval of a State stormwater 
                management program under this section;
        the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the 
        proposed program notify the State of any revisions or 
        modifications necessary to obtain approval. The State shall 
        have an additional 6 months to submit its revised management 
        program, and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove such 
        revised program within 3 months of receipt.
          ``(3) Failure of state to submit report.--If a Governor of a 
        State does not submit a report or revised report required by 
        subsection (b) within the period specified by subsection 
        (e)(2), the Administrator shall, within 18 months after the 
        date on which such report is required to be submitted under 
        subsection (b), prepare a report for such State which makes the 
        identifications required by paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) of 
        subsection (b). Upon completion of the requirement of the 
        preceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for a 
        comment, the Administrator shall report to Congress of the 
        actions of the Administrator under this section.
          ``(4) Failure of state to submit management program.--
                  ``(A) Program management by administrator.--Subject 
                to paragraph (5), if a State fails to submit a 
                management program or revised management program under 
                subsection (c) or the Administrator does not approve 
                such management program, the Administrator shall 
                prepare and implement a management program for 
                controlling pollution added from stormwater discharges 
                to the navigable waters within the State and improving 
                the quality of such waters in accordance with 
                subsection (c).
                  ``(B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator 
                intends to disapprove a program submitted by a State 
                the Administrator shall first notify the Governor of 
                the State, in writing, of the modifications necessary 
                to meet the requirements of this section. The 
                Administrator shall provide adequate public notice and 
                an opportunity for a public hearing for all interested 
                parties.
                  ``(C) State revision of its program.--If, after 
                taking into account the level of funding actually 
                provided as compared with the level authorized, the 
                Administrator determines that a State has failed to 
                demonstrate reasonable further progress toward the 
                attainment of water quality standards as required, the 
                State shall revise its program within 12 months of that 
                determination in a manner sufficient to achieve 
                attainment of applicable water quality standards by the 
                deadline established by this section. If a State fails 
                to make such a program revision or the Administrator 
                does not approve such a revision, the Administrator 
                shall prepare and implement a stormwater management 
                program for the State.
          ``(5) Local Management Programs; Technical Assistance.--If a 
        State fails to submit a management program under subsection (c) 
        or the Administrator does not approve such a management 
        program, a local public agency or organization which has 
        expertise in, and authority to, control water pollution 
        resulting from nonpoint sources in any area of such State which 
        the Administrator determines is of sufficient geographic size 
        may, with approval of such State, request the Administrator to 
        provide, and the Administrator shall provide, technical 
        assistance to such agency or organization in developing for 
        such area a management program which is described in subsection 
        (c) and can be approved pursuant to this subsection. After 
        development of such management program, such agency or 
        organization shall submit such management program to the 
        Administrator for approval.
  ``(g) Interstate Management Conference.--
          ``(1) Convening of conference; notification; purpose.--
                  ``(A) Convening of conference.--If any portion of the 
                navigable waters in any State which is implementing a 
                management program approved under this section is not 
                meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals 
                and requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or 
                in part, of pollution from stormwater in another State, 
                such State may petition the Administrator to convene, 
                and the Administrator shall convene, a management 
                conference of all States which contribute significant 
                pollution resulting from stormwater to such portion.
                  ``(B) Notification.--If, on the basis of information 
                available, the Administrator determines that a State is 
                not meeting applicable water quality standards or the 
                goals and requirements of this Act as a result, in 
                whole or in part, of significant pollution from 
                stormwater in another State, the Administrator shall 
                notify such States.
                  ``(C) Time limit.--The Administrator may convene a 
                management conference under this paragraph not later 
                than 180 days after giving such notification under 
                subparagraph (B), whether or not the State which is not 
                meeting such standards requests such conference.
                  ``(D) Purpose.--The purpose of the conference shall 
                be to develop an agreement among the States to reduce 
                the level of pollution resulting from stormwater in the 
                portion of the navigable waters and to improve the 
                water quality of such portion.
                  ``(E) Protection of water rights.--Nothing in the 
                agreement shall supersede or abrogate rights to 
                quantities of water which have been established by 
                interstate water compacts, Supreme Court decrees, or 
                State water laws.
                  ``(F) Limitations.--This subsection shall not apply 
                to any pollution which is subject to the Colorado River 
                Basin Salinity Control Act. The requirement that the 
                Administrator convene a management conference shall not 
                be subject to the provisions of section 505 of this 
                Act.
          ``(2) State management program requirement.--To the extent 
        that the States reach agreement through such conference, the 
        management programs of the States which are parties to such 
        agreements and which contribute significant pollution to the 
        navigable waters or portions thereof not meeting applicable 
        water quality standards or goals and requirements of this Act 
        will be revised to reflect such agreement. Such management 
        programs shall be consistent with Federal and State law.
  ``(h) Grants for Stormwater Research.--
          ``(1) In general.--To determine the most cost-effective and 
        technologically feasible means of improving the quality of the 
        navigable waters and to develop the criteria required pursuant 
        to subsection (i) of this Act, the Administrator shall 
        establish an initiative through which the Administrator shall 
        fund State and local demonstration programs and research to--
                  ``(A) identify adverse impacts of stormwater 
                discharges on receiving waters;
                  ``(B) identify the pollutants in stormwater which 
                cause impact; and
                  ``(C) test innovative approaches to address the 
                impacts of source controls and model management 
                practices and measures for runoff from municipal storm 
                sewers.
        Persons conducting demonstration programs and research funded 
        under this subsection shall also take into account the physical 
        nature of episodic stormwater flows, the varying pollutants in 
        stormwater, the actual risk the flows pose to the designated 
        beneficial uses, and the ability of natural ecosystems to 
        accept temporary stormwater events.
          ``(2) Award of funds.--The Administrator shall award the 
        demonstration and research program funds taking into account 
        regional and population variations.
          ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
        to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $20,000,000 per 
        fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000. Such sums shall 
        remain available until expended.
          ``(4) Inadequate funding.--For each fiscal year beginning 
        after the date of the enactment of this subsection for which 
        the total amounts appropriated to carry out this subsection are 
        less than the total amounts authorized to be appropriated 
        pursuant to this subsection, any deadlines established under 
        subsection (c)(2)(L) for compliance with water quality 
        standards shall be postponed by 1 year.
  ``(i) Development of Stormwater Criteria.--
          ``(1) In general.--To reflect the episodic character of 
        stormwater which results in significant variances in the 
        volume, hydraulics, hydrology, and pollutant load associated 
        with stormwater discharges, the Administrator shall establish, 
        as an element of the water quality standards established for 
        the designated uses of the navigable waters, stormwater 
        criteria which protect the navigable waters from impairment of 
        the designated beneficial uses caused by stormwater discharges. 
        The criteria shall be technologically and financially feasible 
        and may include performance standards, guidelines, guidance, 
        and model management practices and measures and treatment 
        requirements, as appropriate, and as identified in subsection 
        (h)(1).
          ``(2) Information to be used in development.--The stormwater 
        discharge criteria to be established under this subsection--
                  ``(A) shall be developed from--
                          ``(i) the findings and conclusions of the 
                        demonstration programs and research conducted 
                        under subsection (h);
                          ``(ii) the findings and conclusions of the 
                        research and monitoring activities of 
                        stormwater dischargers performed in compliance 
                        with permit requirements of this Act; and
                          ``(iii) other relevant information, including 
                        information submitted to the Administrator 
                        under the industrial group permit application 
                        process in effect under section 402 of this Act 
                        on the day before the date of the enactment of 
                        this section;
                  ``(B) shall be developed in consultation with persons 
                with expertise in the management of stormwater 
                (including officials of State and local government, 
                industrial and commercial stormwater dischargers, and 
                public interest groups); and
                  ``(C) shall be established as an element of the water 
                quality standards that are developed and implemented 
                under this Act by not later than December 31, 2008.
  ``(j) Collection of Information.--The Administrator shall collect and 
make available, through publications and other appropriate means, 
information pertaining to model management practices and measures and 
implementation methods, including, but not limited to--
          ``(1) information concerning the costs and relative 
        efficiencies of model management practices and measures for 
        reducing pollution from stormwater discharges; and
          ``(2) available data concerning the relationship between 
        water quality and implementation of various management 
        practices to control pollution from stormwater discharges.
  ``(k) Reports of Administrator.--
          ``(1) Biennial reports.--Not later than January 1, 1996, and 
        biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to the 
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
        Works of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal year on 
        the activities and programs implemented under this section and 
        the progress made in reducing pollution in the navigable waters 
        resulting from stormwater discharges and improving the quality 
        of such waters.
          ``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1), 
        at a minimum shall--
                  ``(A) describe the management programs being 
                implemented by the States by types of affected 
                navigable waters, categories and subcategories of 
                stormwater discharges, and types of measures being 
                implemented;
                  ``(B) describe the experiences of the States in 
                adhering to schedules and implementing the measures 
                under subsection (c);
                  ``(C) describe the amount and purpose of grants 
                awarded pursuant to subsection (h);
                  ``(D) identify, to the extent that information is 
                available, the progress made in reducing pollutant 
                loads and improving water quality in the navigable 
                waters;
                  ``(E) indicate what further actions need to be taken 
                to attain and maintain in those navigable waters (i) 
                applicable water quality standards, and (ii) the goals 
                and requirements of this Act;
                  ``(F) include recommendations of the Administrator 
                concerning future programs (including enforcement 
                programs) for controlling pollution from stormwater; 
                and
                  ``(G) identify the activities and programs of 
                departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the 
                United States that are inconsistent with the stormwater 
                management programs implemented by the States under 
                this section and recommended modifications so that such 
                activities and programs are consistent with and assist 
                the States in implementation of such management 
                programs.
  ``(l) Guidance on Model Stormwater Management Practices and 
Measures.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
        appropriate Federal, State, and local departments and agencies, 
        and after providing notice and opportunity for public comment, 
        shall publish guidance to identify model management practices 
        and measures which may be undertaken, at the discretion of the 
        State or appropriate entity, under a management program 
        established pursuant to this section. In preparing such 
        guidance, the Administrator shall consider integration of a 
        stormwater management program of a State with, and the 
        relationship of such program to, the nonpoint source management 
        program of the State under section 319.
          ``(2) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish proposed 
        guidance under this subsection not later than 6 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this subsection and shall publish 
        final guidance under this subsection not later than 18 months 
        after such date of enactment. The Administrator shall 
        periodically review and revise the final guidance upon adequate 
        notice and opportunity for public comment at least once every 3 
        years after its publication.
          ``(3) Model management practices and measures defined.--For 
        the purposes of this subsection, the term ``model management 
        practices and measures'' means economically achievable measures 
        for the control of pollutants from stormwater discharges which 
        reflect the most cost-effective degree of pollutant reduction 
        achievable through the application of the best available 
        practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating 
        methods, or other alternatives.
  ``(m) Enforcement With Respect to Stormwater Dischargers Violating 
State Management Programs.--Stormwater dischargers that do not comply 
with State management program requirements under subsection (c) are 
subject to applicable enforcement actions under sections 309 and 505 of 
this Act.
  ``(n) Entry and Inspection.--In order to carry out the objectives of 
this section, an authorized representative of a State, upon 
presentation of his or her credentials, shall have a right of entry to, 
upon, or through any property at which a stormwater discharge or 
records required to be maintained under the State stormwater management 
program are located.
  ``(o) Limitation on Discharges Regulated Under Watershed Management 
Program.--Stormwater discharges regulated under section 321 in a manner 
consistent with this section shall not be subject to this section.
  ``(p) Mineral Exploration and Mining Sites.--
          ``(1) Exploration sites.--For purposes of subsection 
        (c)(2)(F), stormwater discharges from construction activities 
        shall include stormwater discharges from mineral exploration 
        activities; except that, for exploration at abandoned mined 
        lands, the stormwater program under subsection (c)(2)(F) shall 
        be limited to the control of pollutants added to stormwater by 
        contact with areas disturbed by the exploration activity.
          ``(2) Mining sites.--Stormwater discharges at ore mining and 
        dressing sites shall be subject to this section. If any such 
        discharge is commingled with mine drainage or process 
        wastewater from mining operations, such discharge shall be 
        treated as a discharge from a point source for purposes of this 
        Act.
          ``(3) Abandoned mined lands.--Stormwater discharges from 
        abandoned mined lands shall be subject to section 319; except 
        that if the State, after notice and an opportunity for comment, 
        finds that regulation of such stormwater discharges under this 
        section is necessary to make reasonable further progress toward 
        achieving water quality standards by the date referred to in 
        subsection (c)(2)(B), such discharges shall be subject to this 
        section.
          ``(4) Surface mining control and reclamation act sites.--
        Notwithstanding paragraph (3), stormwater discharges from 
        abandoned mined lands site which are subject to the Surface 
        Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201-
        1328) shall be subject to section 319.
          ``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
        following definitions apply:
                  ``(A) Abandoned mined lands.--The term `abandoned 
                mined lands' means lands which were used for mineral 
                activities and abandoned or left in an inadequate 
                reclamation status and for which there is no continuing 
                reclamation responsibility under State or Federal laws.
                  ``(B) Process waste water.--The term `process waste 
                water' means any water other than stormwater which 
                comes into contact with any raw material, intermediate 
                product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product 
                as part of any mineral beneficiation processes employed 
                at the site.
                  ``(C) Mine drainage.--The term `mine drainage' means 
                any water drained, pumped, or siphoned from underground 
                mine workings or mine pits, but such term shall not 
                include stormwater runoff from tailings dams, dikes, 
                overburden, waste rock piles, haul roads, access roads, 
                and ancillary facility areas.''.
  (b) Repeal of Limitation on Permit Requirement.--Section 402(l) (33 
U.S.C. 1342(l)) is repealed.
  (c) Repeal of Municipal and Industrial Stormwater Discharges 
Program.--Section 402(p) (33 U.S.C. 1342(p)) is repealed.
  (d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended--
          (1) by adding at the end of paragraph (14) the following: 
        ``The term does not include a stormwater discharge.''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(25) The term `stormwater' means runoff from rain, snow melt, or 
any other precipitation-generated surface runoff.
  ``(26) The term `stormwater discharge' means a discharge from any 
conveyance which is used for the collecting and conveying of stormwater 
to navigable waters and which is associated with a municipal storm 
sewer system or industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining activities 
or construction activities.''.

SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

  Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

  ``(a) General Rule.--The Administrator or the Secretary of the Army 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Secretary'), as 
appropriate, shall develop and publish a risk assessment before 
issuing--
          ``(1) any standard, effluent limitation, water quality 
        criterion, water quality based requirement, or other regulatory 
        requirement under this Act (other than a permit or a purely 
        procedural requirement); or
          ``(2) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as a 
        regulatory requirement, would result in an annual increase in 
        cost of $25,000,000 or more.
  ``(b) Contents of Risk Assessments.--A risk assessment developed 
under subsection (a), at a minimum, shall--
          ``(1) identify and use all relevant and readily obtainable 
        data and information of sufficient quality, including data and 
        information submitted to the Agency in a timely fashion;
          ``(2) identify and discuss significant assumptions, 
        inferences, or models used in the risk assessment;
          ``(3) measure the sensitivity of the results to the 
        significant assumptions, inferences, or models that the risk 
        assessment relies upon;
          ``(4) with respect to significant assumptions, inferences, or 
        models that the results are sensitive to, identify and 
        discuss--
                  ``(A) credible alternatives and the basis for the 
                rejection of such alternatives;
                  ``(B) the scientific or policy basis for the 
                selection of such assumptions, inferences, or models; 
                and
                  ``(C) the extent to which any such assumptions, 
                inferences, or models have been validated or conflict 
                with empirical data;
          ``(5) to the maximum extent practical, provide a description 
        of the risk, including, at minimum, best estimates or other 
        unbiased representation of the most plausible level of risk and 
        a description of the specific populations or natural resources 
        subject to the assessment;
          ``(6) to the maximum extent practical, provide a quantitative 
        estimate of the uncertainty inherent in the risk assessment; 
        and
          ``(7) compare the nature and extent of the risk identified in 
        the risk assessment to other risks to human health and the 
        environment.
  ``(c) Risk Assessment Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this section, and after providing notice and 
opportunity for public comment, the Administrator, in consultation with 
the Secretary, shall issue, and thereafter revise, as appropriate, 
guidance for conducting risk assessments under subsection (a).
  ``(d) Margin of Safety.--When establishing a margin of safety for use 
in developing a regulatory requirement described in subsection (a)(1) 
or guidance described in subsection (a)(2), the Administrator or the 
Secretary, as appropriate, shall provide, as part of the risk 
assessment under subsection (a), an explicit and, to the extent 
practical, quantitative description of the margin of safety relative to 
an unbiased estimate of the risk being addressed.
  ``(e) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the Secretary, 
as appropriate, may exempt from the requirements of this section any 
risk assessment prepared in support of a regulatory requirement 
described in subsection (a)(1) which is likely to result in annual 
increase in cost of less than $25,000,000. Such exemptions may be made 
for specific risk assessments or classes of risk assessments.
  ``(f) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of this 
section shall apply to any regulatory requirement described in 
subsection (a)(1) or guidance described in subsection (a)(2) that is 
issued after the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this section.
  ``(g) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
          ``(1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to the 
        regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in subsection 
        (f), the requirements of this section shall apply to--
                  ``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, water 
                quality criterion, water quality based requirement, or 
                other regulatory requirement issued under this Act 
                during the period described in paragraph (2) which is 
                likely to result in an annual increase in cost of 
                $100,000,000 or more; and
                  ``(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the 
                period described in paragraph (2) which, if issued as a 
                regulatory requirement, would be likely to result in 
                annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more.
          ``(2) Covered period.--The period described in this paragraph 
        is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, and ending on the 
        last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
          ``(3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) 
        which was issued before the date of the enactment of this 
        section shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such 
        requirement or guidance, the Administrator or the Secretary, as 
        appropriate, shall based on such review--
                  ``(A) certify that the requirement or guidance meets 
                the requirements of this section without revision; or
                  ``(B) reissue the requirement or guidance, after 
                providing notice and opportunity for public comment, 
                with such revisions as may be necessary for compliance 
                with the requirements of this section.
          ``(4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) for 
        which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate, does 
        not issue a certification or revisions under paragraph (3) on 
        or before the last day of the 18-month period beginning on the 
        date of the enactment of this section shall cease to be 
        effective after such last day until the date on which such 
        certification or revisions are issued.''.

SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.

  Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.

  ``(a) Decision Criterion.--
          ``(1) Certification.--The Administrator or the Secretary of 
        the Army (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
        `Secretary'), as appropriate, shall not issue--
                  ``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or other 
                regulatory requirement under this Act; or
                  ``(B) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as 
                a regulatory requirement, would result in an annual 
                increase in cost of $25,000,000 or more,
        unless the Administrator or the Secretary certifies that the 
        requirement or guidance maximizes net benefits to society. Such 
        certification shall be based on an analysis meeting the 
        requirements of subsection (b).
          ``(2) Effect of criterion.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of this Act, the decision criterion of paragraph (1) 
        shall supplement and, to the extent there is a conflict, 
        supersede the decision criteria otherwise applicable under this 
        Act; except that the resulting regulatory requirement or 
        guidance shall be economically achievable.
          ``(3) Substantial evidence.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of this Act, no regulation or guidance subject to 
        this subsection shall be issued by the Administrator or the 
        Secretary unless the requirement of paragraph (1) is met and 
        the certification is supported by substantial evidence.
  ``(b) Benefit and Cost Analysis Guidance.--
          ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this section, and after providing notice and 
        opportunity for public comment, the Administrator, in 
        concurrence with the Administrator of the Office of Information 
        and Regulatory Affairs, shall issue, and thereafter revise, as 
        appropriate, guidance for conducting benefit and cost analyses 
        in support of making certifications required by subsection (a).
          ``(2) Contents.--Guidance issued under paragraph (1), at a 
        minimum, shall--
                  ``(A) require the identification of available policy 
                alternatives, including the alternative of not 
                regulating and any alternatives proposed during periods 
                for public comment;
                  ``(B) provide methods for estimating the incremental 
                benefits and costs associated with plausible 
                alternatives, including the use of quantitative and 
                qualitative measures;
                  ``(C) require an estimate of the nature and extent of 
                the incremental risk avoided by the standard, effluent 
                limitation, or other regulatory requirement, including 
                a statement that places in context the nature and 
                magnitude of the estimated risk reduction; and
                  ``(D) require an estimate of the total social, 
                environmental, and economic costs of implementing the 
                standard, effluent limitation, or other regulatory 
                requirement.
  ``(c) Exemptions.--The following shall not be subject to the 
requirements of this section:
          ``(1) The issuance of a permit.
          ``(2) The implementation of any purely procedural 
        requirement.
          ``(3) Water quality criteria established under section 304.
          ``(4) Water quality based standards established under section 
        303.
  ``(d) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the Secretary, 
as appropriate, may exempt from this section any regulatory requirement 
that is likely to result in an annual increase in costs of less than 
$25,000,000. Such exemptions may be made for specific regulatory 
requirements or classes of regulatory requirements.
  ``(e) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of this 
section shall apply to any regulatory requirement described in 
subsection (a)(1)(A) or guidance described in subsection (a)(1)(B) that 
is issued after the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date 
of the enactment of this section.
  ``(f) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
          ``(1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to the 
        regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in subsection 
        (e), this section shall apply to--
                  ``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or other 
                regulatory requirement issued under this Act during the 
                period described in paragraph (2) which is likely to 
                result in an annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or 
                more; and
                  ``(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the 
                period described in paragraph (2) which, if issued as a 
                regulatory requirement, would be likely to result in 
                annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more.
          ``(2) Covered period.--The period described in this paragraph 
        is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, and ending on the 
        last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
          ``(3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) 
        which was issued before the date of the enactment of this 
        section shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such 
        requirement or guidance, the Administrator or the Secretary, as 
        appropriate, shall, based on such review--
                  ``(A) certify that the requirement or guidance meets 
                the requirements of this section without revision; or
                  ``(B) reissue the requirement or guidance, after 
                providing notice and opportunity for public comment, 
                with such revisions as may be necessary for compliance 
                with the requirements of this section.
          ``(4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) for 
        which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate, does 
        not issue a certification or revisions under paragraph (3) on 
        or before the last day of the 18-month period beginning on the 
        date of the enactment of this section shall cease to be 
        effective after such last day until the date on which such 
        certification or revisions are issued.
  ``(g) Study.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment 
of this section, the Administrator, in consultation with the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
shall publish an analysis regarding the precision and accuracy of 
benefit and cost estimates prepared under this section. Such study, at 
a minimum, shall--
          ``(1) compare estimates of the benefits and costs prepared 
        under this section to actual costs and benefits achieved after 
        implementation of regulations or other requirements;
          ``(2) examine and assess alternative analytic methods for 
        conducting benefit and cost analysis, including health-health 
        analysis; and
          ``(3) make recommendations for the improvement of benefit and 
        cost analyses conducted under this section.''.

                     TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES

SEC. 401. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING 
                    OPERATIONS.

  Section 402(a) is amended by adding the following new paragraph:
          ``(6) Concentrated animal feeding operations.--For purposes 
        of this section, waste treatment systems, including retention 
        ponds or lagoons, used to meet the requirements of this Act for 
        concentrated animal feeding operations, are not waters of the 
        United States. An existing concentrated animal feeding 
        operation that uses a natural topographic impoundment or 
        structure on the effective date of this Act, which is not 
        hydrologically connected to any other waters of the United 
        States, as a waste treatment system or wastewater retention 
        facility may continue to use that natural topographic feature 
        for waste storage regardless of its size, capacity, or previous 
        use.''.

SEC. 402. PERMIT REFORM.

  (a) Duration and Reopeners.--Section 402(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)) 
is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``five'' and inserting 
        ``10'' and by striking ``and'';
          (2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
        subparagraph (D); and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                  ``(E) can be modified as necessary to address a 
                significant threat to human health and the 
                environment;''.
  (b) Review of Effluent Limitations.--Section 301(d) (33 U.S.C. 
1311(d)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(d) Review of Effluent Limitations.--Any effluent limitation 
required by subsection (b)(2) that is established in a permit under 
section 402 shall be reviewed at least every 10 years when the permit 
is reissued, and, if appropriate, revised.''.
  (c) Discharge Limit.--Section 402(b)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(A)) 
is amended by inserting after the semicolon at the end the following: 
``except that in no event shall a discharge limit in a permit under 
this section be set at a level below the lowest level that the 
pollutant can be reliably quantified on an interlaboratory basis for a 
particular test method, as determined by the Administrator using 
approved analytical methods under section 304(h);''.

SEC. 403. REVIEW OF STATE PROGRAMS AND PERMITS.

  (a) Review of State Programs.--Section 402(c) (33 U.S.C. 1342(c)) is 
amended by inserting before the first sentence the following: ``Upon 
approval of a State program under this section, the Administrator shall 
review administration of the program by the State once every 3 
years.''.
  (b) Review of State Permits.--Section 402(d)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
1342(d)(2)) is amended--
          (1) in the first sentence by striking ``as being outside the 
        guidelines and requirements of this Act'' and inserting ``as 
        presenting a substantial risk to human health and the 
        environment''; and
          (2) in the second sentence by striking ``and the effluent 
        limitations'' and all that follows before the period.
  (c) Court Proceedings to Prohibit Introduction of Pollutants into 
Treatment Works.--Section 402(h) (33 U.S.C. 1342(h)) is amended by 
inserting after ``approved or where'' the following: ``the discharge 
involves a significant source of pollutants to the waters of the United 
States and''.

SEC. 404. STATISTICAL NONCOMPLIANCE.

  (a) Number of Excursions.--Section 402(k) (33 U.S.C. 1342(k)) is 
amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ``In any 
enforcement action or citizen suit under section 309 or 505 of this Act 
or applicable State law alleging noncompliance with a technology-based 
effluent limitation established pursuant to section 301, a permittee 
shall be deemed in compliance with the technology-based effluent 
limitation if the permittee demonstrates through reference to 
information contained in the applicable rulemaking record that the 
number of excursions from the technology-based effluent limitation are 
no greater, on an annual basis, than the number of excursions expected 
from the technology on which the limit is based and that the discharges 
do not violate an applicable water-quality based limitation or 
standard.''.
  (b) Pretreatment Standards.--Section 307(d) (33 U.S.C. 1317(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``In any enforcement action 
or citizen suit under section 309 or 505 of this Act or applicable 
State law alleging noncompliance with a categorical pretreatment 
standard or local pretreatment limit established pursuant to this 
section, a person who demonstrates through reference to information 
contained in the applicable rulemaking record--
          ``(1) that the number of excursions from the categorical 
        pretreatment standard or local pretreatment limit are no 
        greater, on an annual basis, than the number of excursions 
        expected from the technology on which the pretreatment standard 
        or local pretreatment limit is based, and
          ``(2) that the introduction of pollutants into a publicly 
        owned treatment works does not cause interference with such 
        works or cause a violation by such works of an applicable 
        water-quality based limitation or standard,
shall be deemed in compliance with the standard under the Act.''.

SEC. 405. ANTI-BACKSLIDING REQUIREMENTS.

  Section 402(o) (33 U.S.C. 1343(o)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
          ``(4) Nonapplicability to publicly owned treatment works.--
        The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to 
        permitted discharges from a publicly owned treatment works if 
        the treatment works demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
        Administrator that--
                  ``(A) the increase in pollutants is a result of 
                conditions beyond the control of the treatment works 
                (such as fluctuations in normal source water 
                availabilities due to sustained drought conditions); 
                and
                  ``(B) effluent quality does not result in impairment 
                of water quality standards established for the 
                receiving waters.''.

SEC. 406. INTAKE CREDITS.

  Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by inserting after 
subsection (k) the following:
  ``(l) Intake Credits.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, 
        in any effluent limitation or other limitation imposed under 
        the permit program established by the Administrator under this 
        section, any State permit program approved under this section 
        (including any program for implementation under section 
        118(c)(2)), any standards established under section 307(a), or 
        any program for industrial users established under section 
        307(b), the Administrator, as applicable, shall or the State, 
        as applicable, may provide credits for pollutants present in or 
        caused by intake water such that an owner or operator of a 
        point source is not required to remove, reduce, or treat the 
        amount of any pollutant in an effluent below the amount of such 
        pollutant that is present in or caused by the intake water for 
        such facility--
                  ``(A)(i) if the source of the intake water and the 
                receiving waters into which the effluent is ultimately 
                discharged are the same;
                  ``(ii) if the source of the intake water meets the 
                maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques for 
                drinking water contaminants established pursuant to the 
                Safe Drinking Water Act for the pollutant of concern; 
                or
                  ``(iii) if, at the time the limitation or standard is 
                established, the level of the pollutant in the intake 
                water is the same as or lower than the amount of the 
                pollutant in the receiving waters, taking into account 
                analytical variability; and
                  ``(B) if, for conventional pollutants, the 
                constituents of the conventional pollutants in the 
                intake water are the same as the constituents of the 
                conventional pollutants in the effluent.
          ``(2) Allowance for incidental amounts.--In determining 
        whether the condition set forth in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is being 
        met, the Administrator shall or the State may, as appropriate, 
        make allowance for incidental amounts of intake water from 
        sources other than the receiving waters.
          ``(3) Credit for nonqualifying pollutants.--The Administrator 
        shall or a State may provide point sources an appropriate 
        credit for pollutants found in intake water that does not meet 
        the requirement of paragraph (1).
          ``(4) Monitoring.--Nothing in this section precludes the 
        Administrator or a State from requiring monitoring of intake 
        water, effluent, or receiving waters to assist in the 
        implementation of this section.''.

SEC. 407. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.

  Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(s) Combined Sewer Overflows.--
          ``(1) Requirement for permits.--Each permit issued pursuant 
        to this section for a discharge from a combined storm and 
        sanitary sewer shall conform with the combined sewer overflow 
        control policy signed by the Administrator on April 11, 1994.
          ``(2) Term of permit.--
                  ``(A) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any 
                compliance schedule under section 301(b), or any permit 
                limitation under section 402(b)(1)(B), the 
                Administrator (or a State with a program approved under 
                subsection (b)) may issue a permit pursuant to this 
                section for a discharge from a combined storm and 
                sanitary sewer, that includes a schedule for compliance 
                with a long-term control plan under the control policy 
                referred to in paragraph (1), for a term not to exceed 
                15 years.
                  ``(B) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance 
                deadline specified in subparagraph (A), the 
                Administrator or a State with a program approved under 
                subsection (b) shall extend, on request of an owner or 
                operator of a combined storm and sanitary sewer and 
                subject to subparagraph (C), the period of compliance 
                beyond the last day of the 15-year period--
                          ``(i) if the Administrator or the State 
                        determines that compliance by such last day is 
                        not within the economic capability of the owner 
                        or operator; and
                          ``(ii) if the owner or operator demonstrates 
                        to the satisfaction of the Administrator or the 
                        State reasonable further progress towards 
                        compliance with a long-term control plan under 
                        the control policy referred to in paragraph 
                        (1).
                  ``(C) Limitations on extensions.--
                          ``(i) Extension not appropriate.--
                        Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the 
                        Administrator or the State need not grant an 
                        extension of the compliance deadline specified 
                        in subparagraph (A) if the Administrator or the 
                        State determines that such an extension is not 
                        appropriate.
                          ``(ii) New York-New Jersey.--Prior to 
                        granting an extension under subparagraph (B) 
                        with respect to a combined sewer overflow 
                        discharge originating in the State of New York 
                        or New Jersey and affecting the other of such 
                        States, the Administrator or the State from 
                        which the discharge originates, as the case may 
                        be, shall provide written notice of the 
                        proposed extension to the other State and shall 
                        not grant the extension unless the other State 
                        approves the extension or does not disapprove 
                        the extension within 90 days of receiving such 
                        written notice.
          ``(3) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court order 
        entered by a United States district court, or administrative 
        order issued by the Administrator, before the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection establishing any deadlines, 
        schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, 
        schedules, or timetables, for the evaluation, design, or 
        construction of treatment works for control or elimination of 
        any discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary 
        sewer system shall be modified upon motion or request by any 
        party to such consent decree or court order, to extend to 
        December 31, 2009, at a minimum, any such deadlines, schedules, 
        or timetables, including any interim deadlines, schedules, or 
        timetables as is necessary to conform to the policy referred to 
        in paragraph (1) or otherwise achieve the objectives of this 
        subsection. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the period 
        of compliance with respect to a discharge referred to in 
        paragraph (2)(C)(ii) may only be extended in accordance with 
        paragraph (2)(C)(ii).''.

SEC. 408. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS.

  Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(t) Sanitary Sewer Overflows.--
          ``(1) Development of policy.--Not later than 2 years after 
        the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
        Administrator, in consultation with State and local governments 
        and water authorities, shall develop and publish a national 
        control policy for municipal separate sanitary sewer overflows. 
        The national policy shall recognize and address regional and 
        economic factors.
          ``(2) Issuance of permits.--Each permit issued pursuant to 
        this section for a discharge from a municipal separate sanitary 
        sewer shall conform with the policy developed under paragraph 
        (1).
          ``(3) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any compliance 
        schedule under section 301(b), or any permit limitation under 
        subsection (b)(1)(B), the Administrator or a State with a 
        program approved under subsection (b) may issue a permit 
        pursuant to this section for a discharge from a municipal 
        separate sanitary sewer due to stormwater inflows or 
        infiltration. The permit shall include at a minimum a schedule 
        for compliance with a long-term control plan under the policy 
        developed under paragraph (1), for a term not to exceed 15 
        years.
          ``(4) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance deadline 
        specified in paragraph (3), the Administrator or a State with a 
        program approved under subsection (b) shall extend, on request 
        of an owner or operator of a municipal separate sanitary sewer, 
        the period of compliance beyond the last day of such 15-year 
        period if the Administrator or the State determines that 
        compliance by such last day is not within the economic 
        capability of the owner or operator, unless the Administrator 
        or the State determines that the extension is not appropriate.
          ``(5) Effect on other actions.--Before the date of 
        publication of the policy under paragraph (1), the 
        Administrator or Attorney General shall not initiate any 
        administrative or judicial civil penalty action in response to 
        a municipal separate sanitary sewer overflow due to stormwater 
        inflows or infiltration.
          ``(6) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court order 
        entered by a United States district court, or administrative 
        order issued by the Administrator, before the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection establishing any deadlines, 
        schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, 
        schedules, or timetables, for the evaluation, design, or 
        construction of treatment works for control or elimination of 
        any discharge from a municipal separate sanitary sewer shall be 
        modified upon motion or request by any party to such consent 
        decree or court order, to extend to December 31, 2009, at a 
        minimum, any such deadlines, schedules, or timetables, 
        including any interim deadlines, schedules, or timetables as is 
        necessary to conform to the policy developed under paragraph 
        (1) or otherwise achieve the objectives of this subsection.''.

SEC. 409. ABANDONED MINES.

  Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by inserting after 
subsection (o) the following:
  ``(p) Permits for Remediating Party on Abandoned or Inactive Mined 
Lands.--
          ``(1) Applicability.--Subject to this subsection, including 
        the requirements of paragraph (3), the Administrator, with the 
        concurrence of the concerned State or Indian tribe, may issue a 
        permit to a remediating party under this section for discharges 
        associated with remediation activity at abandoned or inactive 
        mined lands which modifies any otherwise applicable requirement 
        of sections 301(b), 302, and 403, or any subsection of this 
        section (other than this subsection).
          ``(2) Application for a permit.--A remediating party who 
        desires to conduct remediation activities on abandoned or 
        inactive mined lands from which there is or may be a discharge 
        of pollutants to waters of the United States or from which 
        there could be a significant addition of pollutants from 
        nonpoint sources may submit an application to the 
        Administrator. The application shall consist of a remediation 
        plan and any other information requested by the Administrator 
        to clarify the plan and activities.
          ``(3) Remediation Plan.--The remediation plan shall include 
        (as appropriate and applicable) the following:
                  ``(A) Identification of the remediating party, 
                including any persons cooperating with the concerned 
                State or Indian tribe with respect to the plan, and a 
                certification that the applicant is a remediating party 
                under this section.
                  ``(B) Identification of the abandoned or inactive 
                mined lands addressed by the plan.
                  ``(C) Identification of the waters of the United 
                States impacted by the abandoned or inactive mined 
                lands.
                  ``(D) A description of the physical conditions at the 
                abandoned or inactive mined lands that are causing 
                adverse water quality impacts.
                  ``(E) A description of practices, including system 
                design and construction plans and operation and 
                maintenance plans, proposed to reduce, control, 
                mitigate, or eliminate the adverse water quality 
                impacts and a schedule for implementing such practices 
                and, if it is an existing remediation project, a 
                description of practices proposed to improve the 
                project, if any.
                  ``(F) An analysis demonstrating that the identified 
                practices are expected to result in a water quality 
                improvement for the identified waters.
                  ``(G) A description of monitoring or other assessment 
                to be undertaken to evaluate the success of the 
                practices during and after implementation, including an 
                assessment of baseline conditions.
                  ``(H) A schedule for periodic reporting on progress 
                in implementation of major elements of the plan.
                  ``(I) A budget and identified funding to support the 
                activities described in the plan.
                  ``(J) Remediation goals and objectives.
                  ``(K) Contingency plans.
                  ``(L) A description of the applicant's legal right to 
                enter and conduct activities.
                  ``(M) The signature of the applicant.
                  ``(N) Identification of the pollutant or pollutants 
                to be addressed by the plan.
          ``(4) Permits.--
                  ``(A) Contents.--Permits issued by the Administrator 
                pursuant to this subsection shall--
                          ``(i) provide for compliance with and 
                        implementation of a remediation plan which, 
                        following issuance of the permit, may be 
                        modified by the applicant after providing 
                        notification to and opportunity for review by 
                        the Administrator;
                          ``(ii) require that any modification of the 
                        plan be reflected in a modified permit;
                          ``(iii) require that if, at any time after 
                        notice to the remediating party and opportunity 
                        for comment by the remediating party, the 
                        Administrator determines that the remediating 
                        party is not implementing the approved 
                        remediation plan in substantial compliance with 
                        its terms, the Administrator shall notify the 
                        remediating party of the determination together 
                        with a list specifying the concerns of the 
                        Administrator;
                          ``(iv) provide that, if the identified 
                        concerns are not resolved or a compliance plan 
                        approved within 180 days of the date of the 
                        notification, the Administrator may take action 
                        under section 309 of this Act;
                          ``(v) provide that clauses (iii) and (iv) not 
                        apply in the case of any action under section 
                        309 to address violations involving gross 
                        negligence (including reckless, willful, or 
                        wanton misconduct) or intentional misconduct by 
                        the remediating party or any other person;
                          ``(vi) not require compliance with any 
                        limitation issued under sections 301(b), 302, 
                        and 403 or any requirement established by the 
                        Administrator under any subsection of this 
                        section (other than this subsection); and
                          ``(vii) provide for termination of coverage 
                        under the permit without the remediating party 
                        being subject to enforcement under sections 309 
                        and 505 of this Act for any remaining 
                        discharges--
                                  ``(I) after implementation of the 
                                remediation plan;
                                  ``(II) if a party obtains a permit to 
                                mine the site; or
                                  ``(III) upon a demonstration by the 
                                remediating party that the surface 
                                water quality conditions due to 
                                remediation activities at the site, 
                                taken as a whole, are equal to or 
                                superior to the surface water qualities 
                                that existed prior to initiation of 
                                remediation.
                  ``(B) Limitations.--The Administrator shall only 
                issue a permit under this section, consistent with the 
                provisions of this subsection, to a remediating party 
                for discharges associated with remediation action at 
                abandoned or inactive mined lands if the remediation 
                plan demonstrates with reasonable certainty that the 
                actions will result in an improvement in water quality.
                  ``(C) Public participation.--The Administrator may 
                only issue a permit or modify a permit under this 
                section after complying with subsection (b)(3).
                  ``(D) Effect of failure to comply with permit.--
                Failure to comply with terms of a permit issued 
                pursuant to this subsection shall not be deemed to be a 
                violation of an effluent standard or limitation issued 
                under this Act.
                  ``(E) Limitations on statutory construction.--This 
                subsection shall not be construed--
                          ``(i) to limit or otherwise affect the 
                        Administrator's powers under section 504; or
                          ``(ii) to preclude actions pursuant to 
                        section 309 or 505 for any violations of 
                        sections 301(a), 302, 402, and 403 that may 
                        have existed for the abandoned or inactive 
                        mined land prior to initiation of remediation 
                        covered by a permit issued under this 
                        subsection, unless such permit covers 
                        remediation activities implemented by the 
                        permit holder prior to issuance of the permit.
          ``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection the following 
        definitions apply:
                  ``(A) Remediating party.--The term `remediating 
                party' means--
                          ``(i) the United States (on non-Federal 
                        lands), a State or its political subdivisions, 
                        or an Indian tribe or officers, employees, or 
                        contractors thereof; and
                          ``(ii) any person acting in cooperation with 
                        a person described in clause (i), including a 
                        government agency that owns abandoned or 
                        inactive mined lands for the purpose of 
                        conducting remediation of the mined lands or 
                        that is engaging in remediation activities 
                        incidental to the ownership of the lands.
                Such term does not include any person who, before or 
                following issuance of a permit under this section, 
                directly benefited from or participated in any mining 
                operation (including exploration) associated with the 
                abandoned or inactive mined lands.
                  ``(B) Abandoned or inactive mined lands.--The term 
                `abandoned or inactive mined lands' means lands that 
                were formerly mined and are not actively mined or in 
                temporary shutdown at the time of submission of the 
                remediation plan and issuance of a permit under this 
                section.
                  ``(C) Mined lands.--The term `mined lands' means the 
                surface or subsurface of an area where mining 
                operations, including exploration, extraction, 
                processing, and beneficiation, have been conducted. 
                Such term includes private ways and roads appurtenant 
                to such area, land excavations, underground mine 
                portals, adits, and surface expressions associated with 
                underground workings, such as glory holes and 
                subsidence features, mining waste, smelting sites 
                associated with other mined lands, and areas where 
                structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or 
                other material or property which result from or have 
                been used in the mining operation are located.
          ``(6) Regulations.--The Administrator may issue regulations 
        establishing more specific requirements that the Administrator 
        determines would facilitate implementation of this subsection. 
        Before issuance of such regulations, the Administrator may 
        establish, on a case-by-case basis after notice and opportunity 
        for public comment as provided by subsection (b)(3), more 
        specific requirements that the Administrator determines would 
        facilitate implementation of this subsection in an individual 
        permit issued to the remediating party.''.

SEC. 410. BENEFICIAL USE OF BIOSOLIDS.

  (a) References.--Section 405(a) (33 U.S.C. 1345(a)) is amended by 
inserting ``(also referred to as `biosolids')'' after ``sewage sludge'' 
the first place it appears.
  (b) Approval of State Programs.--Section 405(f) (33 U.S.C. 1345(f)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) Approval of state programs.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, the Administrator shall approve for purposes 
        of this subsection State programs that meet the standards for 
        final use or disposal of sewage sludge established by the 
        Administrator pursuant to subsection (d).''.
  (c) Studies and Projects.--Section 405(g) (33 U.S.C. 1345(g)) is 
amended--
          (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by inserting 
        ``building materials,'' after ``agricultural and horticultural 
        uses,'';
          (2) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following: 
        ``Not later than January 1, 1997, and after providing notice 
        and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall 
        issue guidance on the beneficial use of sewage sludge.''; and
          (3) in paragraph (2) by striking ``September 30, 1986,'' and 
        inserting ``September 30, 1995,''.

SEC. 411. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS DEFINED.

  Title IV (33 U.S.C. 1341-1345) is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``SEC. 406. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS DEFINED.

  ``(a) Issuance of Regulations.--Not later than 1 year of the date of 
the enactment of this section, the Administrator, after consultation 
with State officials, shall issue a regulation defining `waste 
treatment systems'.
  ``(b) Inclusion of Areas.--
          ``(1) Areas which may be included.--In defining the term 
        `waste treatment systems' under subsection (a), the 
        Administrator may include areas used for the treatment of 
        wastes if the Administrator determines that such inclusion will 
        not interfere with the goals of this Act.
          ``(2) Areas which shall be included.--In defining the term 
        `waste treatment systems' under subsection (a), the 
        Administrator shall include, at a minimum, areas used for 
        detention, retention, treatment, settling, conveyance, or 
        evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water 
        unless--
                  ``(A) the area was created in or resulted from the 
                impoundment or other modification of navigable waters 
                and construction of the area commenced after the date 
                of the enactment of this section;
                  ``(B) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner or 
                operator allows the area to be used by interstate or 
                foreign travelers for recreational purposes; or
                  ``(C) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner or 
                operator allows the taking of fish or shellfish from 
                the area for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
  ``(c) Interim Period.--Before the date of issuance of regulations 
under subsection (a), the Administrator or the State (in the case of a 
State with an approved permit program under section 402) shall not 
require a new permit under section 402 or section 404 for any discharge 
into any area used for detention, retention, treatment, settling, 
conveyance, or evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water 
unless the area is an area described in subsection (b)(2)(A), 
(b)(2)(B), or (b)(2)(C).
  ``(d) Savings Clause.--Any area which the Administrator or the State 
(in the case of a State with an approved permit program under section 
402) determined, before February 15, 1995, is a water of the United 
States and for which, pursuant to such determination, the Administrator 
or State issued, before February 15, 1995, a permit under section 402 
for discharges into such area shall remain a water of the United 
States.
  ``(e) Regulation of Other Areas.--With respect to areas constructed 
for detention, retention, treatment, settling, conveyance, or 
evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water that are not 
waste treatment systems as defined by the Administrator pursuant to 
this section and that the Administrator determines are navigable waters 
under this Act, the Administrator or the States, in establishing 
standards pursuant to section 303(c) of this Act or implementing other 
requirements of this Act, shall give due consideration to the uses for 
which such areas were designed and constructed, and need not establish 
standards or other requirements that will impede such uses.''.

SEC. 412. THERMAL DISCHARGES.

  A municipal utility that before the date of the enactment of this 
section has been issued a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act for discharges into the Upper Greater Miami 
River, Ohio, shall not be required under such Act to construct a 
cooling tower or operate under a thermal management plan unless--
          (1) the Administrator or the State of Ohio determines based 
        on scientific evidence that such discharges result in harm to 
        aquatic life; or
          (2) the municipal utility has applied for and been denied a 
        thermal discharge variance under section 316(a) of such Act.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. CONSULTATION WITH STATES.

  Section 501 (33 U.S.C. 1361) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
  ``(g) Consultation With States.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall consult with and 
        substantially involve State governments and their 
        representative organizations and, to the extent that they 
        participate in the administration of this Act, tribal and local 
        governments, in the Environmental Protection Agency's 
        decisionmaking, priority setting, policy and guidance 
        development, and implementation under this Act.
          ``(2) Inapplicability of federal advisory committee act.--The 
        Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply 
        to meetings held to carry out paragraph (1)--
                  ``(A) if such meetings are held exclusively between 
                Federal officials and elected officers of State, local, 
                and tribal governments (or their designated employees 
                with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their 
                official capacities; and
                  ``(B) if such meetings are solely for the purposes of 
                exchanging views, information, or advice relating to 
                the management or implementation of this Act.
          ``(3) Implementing guidelines.--No later than 6 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator 
        shall issue guidelines for appropriate implementation of this 
        subsection consistent with applicable laws and regulations.''.

SEC. 502. NAVIGABLE WATERS DEFINED.

  Section 502(7) (33 U.S.C. 1362(7)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following: ``Such term does not include `waste treatment systems', 
as defined under section 406.''.

SEC. 503. CAFO DEFINITION CLARIFICATION.

  Section 502(14) (33 U.S.C. 1362(14)) is further amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(other than an intermittent nonproducing 
        livestock operation such as a stockyard or a holding and 
        sorting facility)'' after ``feeding operation''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The term does 
        include an intermittent nonproducing livestock operation if the 
        average number of animal units that are fed or maintained in 
        any 90-day period exceeds the number of animal units determined 
        by the Administrator or the State (in the case of a State with 
        an approved permit program under section 402) to constitute a 
        concentrated animal feeding operation or if the operation is 
        designated by the Administrator or State as a significant 
        contributor of pollution.''.

SEC. 504. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

  Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(27) The term `publicly owned treatment works' means a treatment 
works, as defined in section 212, located at other than an industrial 
facility, which is designed and constructed principally, as determined 
by the Administrator, to treat domestic sewage or a mixture of domestic 
sewage and industrial wastes of a liquid nature. In the case of such a 
facility that is privately owned, such term includes only those 
facilities that, with respect to such industrial wastes, are carrying 
out a pretreatment program meeting all the requirements established 
under section 307 and paragraphs (8) and (9) of section 402(b) for 
pretreatment programs (whether or not the treatment works would be 
required to implement a pretreatment program pursuant to such 
sections).''.

SEC. 505. STATE WATER QUANTITY RIGHTS.

  (a) Policy.--Section 101(g) (33 U.S.C. 1251(g)) is amended by 
inserting before the period at the end of the last sentence ``and in 
accordance with section 510(b) of this Act''.
  (b) State Authority.--Section 510 (33 U.S.C. 1370) is amended--
          (1) by striking the section heading and ``Sec. 510. Except'' 
        and inserting the following:

``SEC. 510. STATE AUTHORITY.

  ``(a) In General.--Except''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(b) Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair any right or authority of a 
State to allocate quantities of water (including boundary waters). 
Nothing in this Act shall be implemented, enforced, or construed to 
allow any officer or agency of the United States to utilize directly or 
indirectly the authorities established under this Act to impose any 
requirement not imposed by the State which would supersede, abrogate, 
or otherwise impair rights to the use of water resources allocated 
under State law, interstate water compact, or Supreme Court decree, or 
held by the United States for use by a State, its political 
subdivisions, or its citizens. No water rights arise in the United 
States or any other person under the provisions of this Act. This 
subsection shall not be construed as limiting any State's authority 
under section 401 of this Act, as excusing any person from obtaining a 
permit under section 402 or 404 of this Act, or as excusing any 
obligation to comply with requirements established by a State to 
implement section 319.''.

SEC. 506. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER POLLUTION LAWS WITH RESPECT TO 
                    VEGETABLE OIL.

  (a) Differentiation Among Fats, Oils, and Greases.--
          (1) In general.--In issuing or enforcing a regulation, an 
        interpretation, or a guideline relating to a fat, oil, or 
        grease under a Federal law related to water pollution control, 
        the head of a Federal agency shall--
                  (A) differentiate between and establish separate 
                classes for--
                          (i)(I) animal fats; and
                          (II) vegetable oils; and
                          (ii) other oils, including petroleum oil; and
                  (B) apply different standards and reporting 
                requirements (including reporting requirements based on 
                quantitative amounts) to different classes of fat and 
                oil as provided in paragraph (2).
          (2) Considerations.--In differentiating between the classes 
        of animal fats and vegetable oils referred to in paragraph 
        (1)(A)(i) and the classes of oils described in paragraph 
        (1)(A)(ii), the head of the Federal agency shall consider 
        differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other 
        properties, and in the environmental effects, of the classes.
  (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Animal fat.--The term ``animal fat'' means each type of 
        animal fat, oil, or grease, including fat, oil, or grease from 
        fish or a marine mammal and any fat, oil, or grease referred to 
        in section 61(a)(2) of title 13, United States Code.
          (2) Vegetable oil.--The term ``vegetable oil'' means each 
        type of vegetable oil, including vegetable oil from a seed, 
        nut, or kernel and any vegetable oil referred to in section 
        61(a)(1) of title 13, United States Code.

SEC. 507. NEEDS ESTIMATE.

  Section 516(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1375(b)(1)) is amended--
          (1) in the first sentence by striking ``biennially revised'' 
        and inserting ``quadrennially revised''; and
          (2) in the second sentence by striking ``February 10 of each 
        odd-numbered year'' and inserting ``December 31, 1997, and 
        December 31 of every 4th calendar year thereafter''.

SEC. 508. GENERAL PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.

  Section 517 (33 U.S.C. 1376) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$135,000,000''; and
          (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
        ``, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
        1991 through 2000''.

SEC. 509. INDIAN TRIBES.

  (a) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 518(d) (33 U.S.C. 1377(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``In exercising the review 
and approval provided in this paragraph, the Administrator shall 
respect the terms of any cooperative agreement that addresses the 
authority or responsibility of a State or Indian tribe to administer 
the requirements of this Act within the exterior boundaries of a 
Federal Indian reservation, so long as that agreement otherwise 
provides for the adequate administration of this Act.''.
  (b) Dispute Resolution.--Section 518 is amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (j); and
          (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new 
        subsection:
  ``(h) Dispute Resolution.--The Administrator shall promulgate, in 
consultation with States and Indian tribes, regulations which provide 
for the resolution of any unreasonable consequences that may arise as a 
result of differing water quality standards that may be set by States 
and Indian tribes located on common bodies of water. Such mechanism 
shall provide, in a manner consistent with the objectives of this Act, 
that persons who are affected by differing tribal or State water 
quality permit requirements have standing to utilize the dispute 
resolution process, and for the explicit consideration of relevant 
factors, including the effects of differing water quality permit 
requirements on upstream and downstream dischargers, economic impacts, 
and present and historical uses and quality of the waters subject to 
such standards.''.
  (c) Petitions for Review.--Section 518 (33 U.S.C. 1377) is amended by 
inserting after subsection (h) (as added by subsection (b) of this 
section) the following:
  ``(i) District Courts; Petition for Review; Standard of Review.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 509, the United States 
district courts shall have jurisdiction over actions brought to review 
any determination of the Administrator under section 518. Such an 
action may be brought by a State or an Indian tribe and shall be filed 
with the court within the 90-day period beginning on the date of the 
determination of the Administrator is made. In any such action, the 
district court shall review the Administrator's determination de 
novo.''.
  (d) Definitions.--Section 518(j)(1), as redesignated by subsection 
(b) of this section, is amended by inserting before the semicolon at 
the end the following: ``, and, in the State of Oklahoma, such term 
includes lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an 
Indian tribe or an individual member of an Indian tribe, lands which 
are subject to Federal restrictions against alienation, and lands which 
are located within a dependent Indian community, as defined in section 
1151 of title 18, United States Code''.
  (e) Reservation of Funds.--Section 518(c) (33 U.S.C. 1377(c)) is 
amended in the first sentence--
          (1) by striking ``beginning after September 30, 1986,'';
          (2) by striking ``section 205(e)'' and inserting ``section 
        604(a)'';
          (3) by striking ``one-half of''; and
          (4) by striking ``section 207'' and inserting ``sections 607 
        and 608''.

SEC. 510. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

  Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is amended by redesignating section 519 
as section 521 and by inserting after section 518 the following:

``SEC. 519. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

  ``In developing any effluent guideline under section 304(b), 
pretreatment standard under section 307(b), or new source performance 
standard under section 306 that is applicable to the food processing 
industry, the Administrator shall consult with and consider the 
recommendations of the Food and Drug Administration, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, and Department of 
Commerce. The recommendations of such departments and agencies and a 
description of the Administrator's response to those recommendations 
shall be made part of the rulemaking record for the development of such 
guidelines and standards. The Administrator's response shall include an 
explanation with respect to food safety, including a discussion of 
relative risks, of any departure from a recommendation by any such 
department or agency.''.

SEC. 511. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

  Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is further amended by inserting before 
section 521, as redesignated by section 510 of this Act, the following:

``SEC. 520. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

  ``(a) Establishment of Board.--The Administrator shall establish an 
independent Board of Audit Appeals (hereinafter in this section 
referred to as the `Board') in accordance with the requirements of this 
section.
  ``(b) Duties.--The Board shall have the authority to review and 
decide contested audit determinations related to grant and contract 
awards under this Act. In carrying out such duties, the Board shall 
consider only those regulations, guidance, policies, facts, and 
circumstances in effect at the time of the grant or contract award.
  ``(c) Prior Eligibility Decisions.--The Board shall not reverse 
project cost eligibility determinations that are supported by an 
decision document of the Environmental Protection Agency, including 
grant or contract approvals, plans and specifications approval forms, 
grant or contract payments, change order approval forms, or similar 
documents approving project cost eligibility, except upon a showing 
that such decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of law in 
effect at the time of such decision.
  ``(d) Membership.--
          ``(1) Appointment.--The Board shall be composed of 7 members 
        to be appointed by the Administrator not later than 90 days 
        after the date of the enactment of this section.
          ``(2) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for a term of 3 
        years.
          ``(3) Qualifications.--The Administrator shall appoint as 
        members of the Board individuals who are specially qualified to 
        serve on the Board by virtue of their expertise in grant and 
        contracting procedures. The Administrator shall make every 
        effort to ensure that individuals appointed as members of the 
        Board are free from conflicts of interest in carrying out the 
        duties of the Board.
  ``(e) Basic Pay and Travel Expenses.--
          ``(1) Rates of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        members shall each be paid at a rate of basic pay, to be 
        determined by the Administrator, for each day (including travel 
        time) during which they are engaged in the actual performance 
        of duties vested in the Board.
          ``(2) Prohibition of compensation of federal employees.--
        Members of the Board who are full-time officers or employees of 
        the United States may not receive additional pay, allowances, 
        or benefits by reason of their service on the Board.
          ``(3) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel 
        expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
        accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
  ``(f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of the 
Board, the Administrator shall provide to the Board the administrative 
support services necessary for the Board to carry out its 
responsibilities under this section.
  ``(g) Disputes Eligible for Review.--The authority of the Board under 
this section shall extend to any contested audit determination that on 
the date of the enactment of this section has yet to be formally 
concluded and accepted by either the grantee or the Administrator.''.

        TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

SEC. 601. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.

  Section 601(a) (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended by striking ``(1) for 
construction'' and all that follows through the period and inserting 
``to accomplish the purposes of this Act.''.

SEC. 602. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.

  (a) Requirements For Construction of Treatment Works.--Section 
602(b)(6) (33 U.S.C. 1382(b)(6)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``before fiscal year 1995''; and
          (2) by striking ``201(b)'' and all that follows through 
        ``218'' and inserting ``211''.
  (b) Compliance With Other Federal Laws.--Section 602 (33 U.S.C. 1382) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Other Federal Laws.--
          ``(1) Compliance with other federal laws.--If a State 
        provides assistance from its water pollution control revolving 
        fund established in accordance with this title and in 
        accordance with a statute, rule, executive order, or program of 
        the State which addresses the intent of any requirement or any 
        Federal executive order or law other than this Act, as 
        determined by the State, the State in providing such assistance 
        shall be treated as having met the Federal requirements.
          ``(2) Limitation on applicability of other federal laws.--If 
        a State does not meet a requirement of a Federal executive 
        order or law other than this Act under paragraph (1), such 
        Federal law shall only apply to Federal funds deposited in the 
        water pollution control revolving fund established by the State 
        in accordance with this title the first time such funds are 
        used to provide assistance from the revolving fund.''.
  (c) Guidance for Small Systems.--Section 602 (33 U.S.C. 1382) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(d) Guidance for Small Systems.--
          ``(1) Simplified procedures.--Not later than 1 year after the 
        date of the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator 
        shall assist the States in establishing simplified procedures 
        for small systems to obtain assistance under this title.
          ``(2) Publication of manual.--Not later than 1 year after the 
        date of the enactment of this subsection, and after providing 
        notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator 
        shall publish a manual to assist small systems in obtaining 
        assistance under this title and publish in the Federal Register 
        notice of the availability of the manual.
          ``(3) Small system defined.--For purposes of this title, the 
        term `small system' means a system for which a municipality or 
        intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency seeks assistance 
        under this title and which serves a population of 20,000 or 
        less.''.

SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.

  (a) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--Section 603(c) (33 U.S.C. 
1383(c)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(c) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
          ``(1) In general.--The amounts of funds available to each 
        State water pollution control revolving fund shall be used only 
        for providing financial assistance to activities which have as 
        a principal benefit the improvement or protection of water 
        quality to a municipality, intermunicipal agency, interstate 
        agency, State agency, or other person. Such activities may 
        include the following:
                  ``(A) Construction of a publicly owned treatment 
                works if the recipient of such assistance is a 
                municipality.
                  ``(B) Implementation of lake protection programs and 
                projects under section 314.
                  ``(C) Implementation of a management program under 
                section 319.
                  ``(D) Implementation of a conservation and management 
                plan under section 320.
                  ``(E) Implementation of a watershed management plan 
                under section 321.
                  ``(F) Implementation of a stormwater management 
                program under section 322.
                  ``(G) Acquisition of property rights for the 
                restoration or protection of publicly or privately 
                owned riparian areas.
                  ``(H) Implementation of measures to improve the 
                efficiency of public water use.
                  ``(I) Development and implementation of plans by a 
                public recipient to prevent water pollution.
                  ``(J) Acquisition of lands necessary to meet any 
                mitigation requirements related to construction of a 
                publicly owned treatment works.
          ``(2) Fund amounts.--The water pollution control revolving 
        fund of a State shall be established, maintained, and credited 
        with repayments, and the fund balance shall be available in 
        perpetuity for providing financial assistance described in 
        paragraph (1). Fees charged by a State to recipients of such 
        assistance may be deposited in the fund for the sole purpose of 
        financing the cost of administration of this title.''.
  (b) Extended Repayment Period for Disadvantaged Communities.--Section 
603(d)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting after ``20 years'' the 
        following: ``or, in the case of a disadvantaged community, the 
        lesser of 40 years or the expected life of the project to be 
        financed with the proceeds of the loan''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``not later than 20 years 
        after project completion'' and inserting ``upon the expiration 
        of the term of the loan''.
  (c) Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technology.--Section 603(d)(5) (33 
U.S.C. 1383(d)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(5) to provide loan guarantees for--
                  ``(A) similar revolving funds established by 
                municipalities or intermunicipal agencies; and
                  ``(B) developing and implementing innovative 
                technologies.''.
  (d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 603(d)(7) (33 U.S.C. 
1383(d)(7)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
following: ``or $400,000 per year, whichever is greater, plus the 
amount of any fees collected by the State for such purpose under 
subsection (c)(2)''.
  (e) Technical and Planning Assistance for Small Systems.--Section 
603(d) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
          ``(8) to provide to small systems technical and planning 
        assistance and assistance in financial management, user fee 
        analysis, budgeting, capital improvement planning, facility 
        operation and maintenance, repair schedules, and other 
        activities to improve wastewater treatment plant operations; 
        except that such amounts shall not exceed 2 percent of all 
        grant awards to such fund under this title.''.
  (f) Consistency With Planning Requirements.--Section 603(f) (33 
U.S.C. 1383(f)) is amended by striking ``and 320'' and inserting ``320, 
321, and 322''.
  (g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--Section 603(g) (33 
U.S.C. 1383(g)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--The State may provide 
financial assistance from its water pollution control revolving fund 
with respect to a project for construction of a treatment works only 
if--
          ``(1) such project is on the State's priority list under 
        section 216 of this Act; and
          ``(2) the recipient of such assistance is a municipality in 
        any case in which the treatment works is privately owned.''.
  (h) Interest Rates.--Section 603 is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:
  ``(i) Interest Rates.--In any case in which a State makes a loan 
pursuant to subsection (d)(1) to a disadvantaged community, the State 
may charge a negative interest rate of not to exceed 2 percent to 
reduce the unpaid principal of the loan. The aggregate amount of all 
such negative interest rate loans the State makes in a fiscal year 
shall not exceed 20 percent of the aggregate amount of all loans made 
by the State from its revolving loan fund in such fiscal year.
  ``(j) Disadvantaged Community Defined.--As used in this section, the 
term `disadvantaged community' means the service area of a publicly 
owned treatment works with respect to which the average annual 
residential sewage treatment charges for a user of the treatment works 
meet affordability criteria established by the State in which the 
treatment works is located (after providing for public review and 
comment) in accordance with guidelines to be established by the 
Administrator, in cooperation with the States.''.
  (i) Sale of Treatment Works.--Section 603 is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(k) Sale of Treatment Works.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
        this Act, any State, municipality, intermunicipality, or 
        interstate agency may transfer by sale to a qualified private 
        sector entity all or part of a treatment works that is owned by 
        such agency and for which it received Federal financial 
        assistance under this Act if the transfer price will be 
        distributed, as amounts are received, in the following order:
                  ``(A) First reimbursement of the agency of the 
                unadjusted dollar amount of the costs of construction 
                of the treatment works or part thereof plus any 
                transaction and fix-up costs incurred by the agency 
                with respect to the transfer less the amount of such 
                Federal financial assistance provided with respect to 
                such costs.
                  ``(B) If proceeds from the transfer remain after such 
                reimbursement, repayment of the Federal Government of 
                the amount of such Federal financial assistance less 
                the applicable share of accumulated depreciation on 
                such treatment works (calculated using Internal Revenue 
                Service accelerated depreciation schedule applicable to 
                treatment works).
                  ``(C) If any proceeds of such transfer remain after 
                such reimbursement and repayment, retention of the 
                remaining proceeds by such agency.
          ``(2) Release of condition.--Any requirement imposed by 
        regulation or policy for a showing that the treatment works are 
        no longer needed to serve their original purpose shall not 
        apply.
          ``(3) Selection of buyer.--A State, municipality, 
        intermunicipality, or interstate agency exercising the 
        authority granted by this subsection shall select a qualified 
        private sector entity on the basis of total net cost and other 
        appropriate criteria and shall utilize such competitive 
        bidding, direct negotiation, or other criteria and procedures 
        as may be required by State law.
  ``(l) Private Ownership of Treatment Works.--
          ``(1) Regulatory review.--The Administrator shall review the 
        law and any regulations, policies, and procedures of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency affecting the construction, 
        improvement, replacement, operation, maintenance, and transfer 
        of ownership of current and future treatment works owned by a 
        State, municipality, intermunicipality, or interstate agency. 
        If permitted by law, the Administrator shall modify such 
        regulations, policies, and procedures to eliminate any 
        obstacles to the construction, improvement, replacement, 
        operation, and maintenance of such treatment works by qualified 
        private sector entities.
          ``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit to 
        Congress a report identifying any provisions of law that must 
        be changed in order to eliminate any obstacles referred to in 
        paragraph (1).
          ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
        `qualified private sector entity' means any nongovernmental 
        individual, group, association, business, partnership, 
        organization, or privately or publicly held corporation that--
                  ``(A) has sufficient experience and expertise to 
                discharge successfully the responsibilities associated 
                with construction, operation, and maintenance of a 
                treatment works and to satisfy any guarantees that are 
                agreed to in connection with a transfer of treatment 
                works under subsection (k);
                  ``(B) has the ability to assure protection against 
                insolvency and interruption of services through 
                contractual and financial guarantees; and
                  ``(C) with respect to subsection (k), to the extent 
                consistent with the North American Free Trade Agreement 
                and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--
                          ``(i) is majority-owned and controlled by 
                        citizens of the United States; and
                          ``(ii) does not receive subsidies from a 
                        foreign government.''.

SEC. 604. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

  (a) In General.--Section 604(a) (33 U.S.C. 1384(a)) is amended to 
read as follows:
  ``(a) Formula for Fiscal Years 1996-2000.--Sums authorized to be 
appropriated pursuant to section 607 for each of fiscal years 1996, 
1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be allotted for such year by the 
Administrator not later than the 10th day which begins after the date 
of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. Sums authorized 
for each such fiscal year shall be allotted in accordance with the 
following table:
                                                     Percentage of sums
``States:                                                 authorized:  
    Alabama.......................................              1.0110 
    Alaska........................................              0.5411 
    Arizona.......................................              0.7464 
    Arkansas......................................              0.5914 
    California....................................              7.9031 
    Colorado......................................              0.7232 
    Connecticut...................................              1.3537 
    Delaware......................................              0.4438 
    District of Columbia..........................              0.4438 
    Florida.......................................              3.4462 
    Georgia.......................................              1.8683 
    Hawaii........................................              0.7002 
    Idaho.........................................              0.4438 
    Illinois......................................              4.9976 
    Indiana.......................................              2.6631 
    Iowa..........................................              1.2236 
    Kansas........................................              0.8690 
    Kentucky......................................              1.3570 
    Louisiana.....................................              1.0060 
    Maine.........................................              0.6999 
    Maryland......................................              2.1867 
    Massachusetts.................................              3.7518 
    Michigan......................................              3.8875 
    Minnesota.....................................              1.6618 
    Mississippi...................................              0.8146 
    Missouri......................................              2.5063 
    Montana.......................................              0.4438 
    Nebraska......................................              0.4624 
    Nevada........................................              0.4438 
    New Hampshire.................................              0.9035 
    New Jersey....................................              4.5156 
    New Mexico....................................              0.4438 
    New York......................................             12.1969 
    North Carolina................................              1.9943 
    North Dakota..................................              0.4438 
    Ohio..........................................              5.0898 
    Oklahoma......................................              0.7304 
    Oregon........................................              1.2399 
    Pennsylvania..................................              4.2145 
    Rhode Island..................................              0.6071 
    South Carolina................................              0.9262 
    South Dakota..................................              0.4438 
    Tennessee.....................................              1.4668 
    Texas.........................................              4.6458 
    Utah..........................................              0.4764 
    Vermont.......................................              0.4438 
    Virginia......................................              2.2615 
    Washington....................................              1.9217 
    West Virginia.................................              1.4249 
    Wisconsin.....................................              2.4442 
    Wyoming.......................................              0.4438 
    Puerto Rico...................................              1.1792 
    Northern Marianas.............................              0.0377 
    American Samoa................................              0.0812 
    Guam..........................................              0.0587 
    Pacific Islands Trust Territory...............              0.1158 
    Virgin Islands................................           0.0576.''.

  (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 604(c)(2) is amended by striking 
``title II of this Act'' and inserting ``this title''.

SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  Section 607 (33 U.S.C. 1387(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(6) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995;
          ``(7) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          ``(8) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          ``(9) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          ``(10) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
          ``(11) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.

SEC. 606. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING 
                    FUNDS.

  Title VI (33 U.S.C. 1381-1387) is amended--
          (1) in section 607 by inserting after ``title'' the 
        following: ``(other than section 608)''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 608. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING 
                    FUNDS.

  ``(a) General Authority.--The Administrator shall make capitalization 
grants to each State for the purpose of establishing a nonpoint source 
water pollution control revolving fund for providing assistance--
          ``(1) to persons for carrying out management practices and 
        measures under the State management program approved under 
        section 319; and
          ``(2) to agricultural producers for the development and 
        implementation of the water quality components of a whole farm 
        or ranch resource management plan and for implementation of 
        management practices and measures under such a plan.
A State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving fund shall be 
separate from any other State water pollution control revolving fund; 
except that the chief executive officer of the State may transfer funds 
from one fund to the other fund.
  ``(b) Applicability of Other Requirements of This Title.--Except to 
the extent the Administrator, in consultation with the chief executive 
officers of the States, determines that a provision of this title is 
not consistent with a provision of this section, the provisions of 
sections 601 through 606 of this title shall apply to grants made under 
this section in the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to 
grants made under section 601 of this title. Paragraph (5) of section 
602(b) shall apply to all funds in a State revolving fund established 
under this section as a result of capitalization grants made under this 
section; except that such funds shall first be used to assure 
reasonable progress toward attainment of the goals of section 319, as 
determined by the Governor of the State. Paragraph (7) of section 
603(d) shall apply to a State revolving fund established under this 
section, except that the 4-percent limitation contained in such section 
shall not apply to such revolving fund.
  ``(c) Apportionment of Funds.--Funds made available to carry out this 
section for any fiscal year shall be allotted among the States by the 
Administrator in the same manner as funds are allotted among the States 
under section 319 in such fiscal year.
  ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 per fiscal year for 
each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 701. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Section 118.--Section 118(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(1)(A)) is 
amended by striking the last comma.
  (b) Section 120.--Section 120(d) (33 U.S.C. 1270(d)) is amended by 
striking ``(1)''.
  (c) Section 204.--Section 204(a)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1284(a)(3)) is amended 
by striking the final period and inserting a semicolon.
  (d) Section 205.--Section 205 (33 U.S.C. 1285) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``and 1985'' and 
        inserting ``1985, and 1986'';
          (2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``through 1985'' and 
        inserting ``through 1986'';
          (3) in subsection (g)(1) by striking the period following ``4 
        per centum''; and
          (4) in subsection (m)(1)(B) by striking ``this'' the last 
        place it appears and inserting ``such''.
  (e) Section 208.--Section 208 (33 U.S.C. 1288) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``designed'' and 
        inserting ``designated''; and
          (2) in subsection (j)(1) by striking ``September 31, 1988'' 
        and inserting ``September 30, 1988''.
  (f) Section 301.--Section 301(j)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1311(j)(1)(A)) is 
amended by striking ``that'' the first place it appears and inserting 
``than''.
  (g) Section 309.--Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is amended by 
striking the second comma following ``Act by a State''.
  (h) Section 311.--Section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (b) by moving paragraph (12) (including 
        subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C)) 2 ems to the right; and
          (2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ``The'' and inserting 
        ``the''.
  (i) Section 505.--Section 505(f) (33 U.S.C. 1365(f)) is amended by 
striking the last comma.
  (j) Section 516.--Section 516 (33 U.S.C. 1375) is amended by 
redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
  (k) Section 518.--Section 518(f) (33 U.S.C. 1377(f)) is amended by 
striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(e)''.

SEC. 702. JOHN A. BLATNIK NATIONAL FRESH WATER QUALITY RESEARCH 
                    LABORATORY.

  (a) Designation.--The laboratory and research facility established 
pursuant to section 104(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1254(e)) that is located in Duluth, Minnesota, shall be 
known and designated as the ``John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water 
Quality Research Laboratory''.
  (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the laboratory and 
research facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality 
Research Laboratory''.

SEC. 703. WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR COLONIAS.

  (a) Grant Assistance.--The Administrator may make grants to States 
along the United States-Mexico border to provide assistance for 
planning, design, and construction of treatment works to provide 
wastewater service to the communities along such border commonly known 
as ``colonias''.
  (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
carried out using funds made available under subsection (a) shall be 50 
percent. The non-Federal share of such cost shall be provided by the 
State receiving the grant.
  (c) Treatment Works Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``treatment works'' has the meaning such term has under section 212 of 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for making grants under subsection (a) $50,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 704. SAVINGS IN MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER COSTS.

  (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, shall review, analyze, and compile information on the annual 
savings that municipalities realize in the construction, operation, and 
maintenance of drinking water facilities as a result of actions taken 
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  (b) Contents.--The study conducted under subsection (a), at a 
minimum, shall contain an examination of the following elements:
          (1) Savings to municipalities in the construction of drinking 
        water filtration facilities resulting from actions taken under 
        the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
          (2) Savings to municipalities in the operation and 
        maintenance of drinking water facilities resulting from actions 
        taken under such Act.
          (3) Savings to municipalities in health expenditures 
        resulting from actions taken under such Act.
  (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report 
containing the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

            TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation 
and Management Act of 1995''.

SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

  (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
          (1) wetlands play an integral role in maintaining the quality 
        of life through material contributions to our national economy, 
        food supply, water supply and quality, flood control, and fish, 
        wildlife, and plant resources, and thus to the health, safety, 
        recreation and economic well-being of citizens throughout the 
        Nation;
          (2) wetlands serve important ecological and natural resource 
        functions, such as providing essential nesting and feeding 
        habitat for waterfowl, other wildlife, and many rare and 
        endangered species, fisheries habitat, the enhancement of water 
        quality, and natural flood control;
          (3) much of the Nation's resource has sustained significant 
        degradation, resulting in the need for effective programs to 
        limit the loss of ecologically significant wetlands and to 
        provide for long-term restoration and enhancement of the 
        wetlands resource base;
          (4) most of the loss of wetlands in coastal Louisiana is not 
        attributable to human activity;
          (5) because 75 percent of the Nation's wetlands in the lower 
        48 States are privately owned and because the majority of the 
        Nation's population lives in or near wetlands areas, an 
        effective wetlands conservation and management program must 
        reflect a balanced approach that conserves and enhances 
        important wetlands values and functions while observing private 
        property rights, recognizing the need for essential public 
        infrastructure, such as highways, ports, airports, pipelines, 
        sewer systems, and public water supply systems, and providing 
        the opportunity for sustained economic growth;
          (6) while wetlands provide many varied economic and 
        environmental benefits, they also present health risks in some 
        instances where they act as breeding grounds for insects that 
        are carriers of human and animal diseases;
          (7) the Federal permit program established under section 404 
        of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not originally 
        conceived as a wetlands regulatory program and is insufficient 
        to ensure that the Nation's wetlands resource base will be 
        conserved and managed in a fair and environmentally sound 
        manner; and
          (8) navigational dredging plays a vital role in the Nation's 
        economy and, while adequate safeguards for aquatic resources 
        must be maintained, it is essential that the regulatory process 
        be streamlined.
  (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to establish a new Federal 
regulatory program for certain wetlands and waters of the United 
States--
          (1) to assert Federal regulatory jurisdiction over a broad 
        category of specifically identified activities that result in 
        the degradation or loss of wetlands;
          (2) to provide that each Federal agency, officer, and 
        employee exercise Federal authority under section 404 of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act to ensure that agency 
        action under such section will not limit the use of privately 
        owned property so as to diminish its value;
          (3) to account for variations in wetlands functions in 
        determining the character and extent of regulation of 
        activities occurring in wetlands areas;
          (4) to provide sufficient regulatory incentives for 
        conservation, restoration, or enhancement activities;
          (5) to encourage conservation of resources on a watershed 
        basis to the fullest extent practicable;
          (6) to protect public safety and balance public and private 
        interests in determining the conditions under which activity in 
        wetlands areas may occur; and
          (7) to streamline the regulatory mechanisms relating to 
        navigational dredging in the Nation's waters.

SEC. 803. WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT.

  Title IV (33 U.S.C. 1341 et seq.) is further amended by striking 
section 404 and inserting the following new section:

``SEC. 404. PERMITS FOR ACTIVITIES IN WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE UNITED 
                    STATES.

  ``(a) Prohibited Activities.--No person shall undertake an activity 
in wetlands or waters of the United States unless such activity is 
undertaken pursuant to a permit issued by the Secretary or is otherwise 
authorized under this section.
  ``(b) Authorized Activities.--
          ``(1) Permits.--The Secretary is authorized to issue permits 
        authorizing an activity in wetlands or waters of the United 
        States in accordance with the requirements of this section.
          ``(2) Nonpermit activities.--An activity in wetlands or 
        waters of the United States may be undertaken without a permit 
        from the Secretary if that activity is authorized under 
        subsection (e)(6) or (e)(8) or is exempt from the requirements 
        of this section under subsection (f) or other provisions of 
        this section.
  ``(c) Wetlands Classification.--
          ``(1) Regulations; applications.--
                  ``(A) Deadline for issuance of regulations.--Not 
                later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
                the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management 
                Act of 1995, the Secretary shall issue regulations to 
                classify wetlands as type A, type B, or type C wetlands 
                depending on the relative ecological significance of 
                the wetlands.
                  ``(B) Application requirement.--Any person seeking to 
                undertake activities in wetlands or waters of the 
                United States for which a permit is required under this 
                section shall make application to the Secretary 
                identifying the site of such activity and requesting 
                that the Secretary determine, in accordance with 
                paragraph (3) of this subsection, the classification of 
                the wetlands in which such activity is proposed to 
                occur. The applicant may also provide such additional 
                information regarding such proposed activity as may be 
                necessary or appropriate for purposes of determining 
                the classification of such wetlands or whether and 
                under what conditions the proposed activity may be 
                permitted to occur.
          ``(2) Deadlines for classifications.--
                  ``(A) General rule.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, within 90 days 
                following the receipt of an application under paragraph 
                (1), the Secretary shall provide notice to the 
                applicant of the classification of the wetlands that 
                are the subject of such application and shall state in 
                writing the basis for such classification. The 
                classification of the wetlands that are the subject of 
                the application shall be determined by the Secretary in 
                accordance with the requirements for classification of 
                wetlands under paragraph (3) and subsection (i).
                  ``(B) Rule for advance classifications.--In the case 
                of an application proposing activities located in 
                wetlands that are the subject of an advance 
                classification under subsection (h), the Secretary 
                shall provide notice to the applicant of such 
                classification within thirty days following the receipt 
                of such application, and shall provide an opportunity 
                for review of such classification under paragraph (5) 
                and subsection (i).
          ``(3) Classification system.--Upon application under this 
        subsection, the Secretary shall--
                  ``(A) classify as type A wetlands those wetlands that 
                are of critical significance to the long-term 
                conservation of the aquatic environment of which such 
                wetlands are a part and which meet the following 
                requirements:
                          ``(i) such wetlands serve critical wetlands 
                        functions, including the provision of critical 
                        habitat for a concentration of avian, aquatic, 
                        or wetland dependent wildlife;
                          ``(ii) such wetlands consist of or may be a 
                        portion of ten or more contiguous acres and 
                        have an inlet or outlet for relief of water 
                        flow; except that this requirement shall not 
                        operate to preclude the classification as type 
                        A wetlands lands containing prairie pothole 
                        features, playa lakes, or vernal pools if such 
                        lands otherwise meet the requirements for type 
                        A classification under this paragraph;
                          ``(iii) there exists a scarcity within the 
                        watershed or aquatic environment of identified 
                        functions served by such wetlands such that the 
                        use of such wetlands for an activity in 
                        wetlands or waters of the United States would 
                        seriously jeopardize the availability of these 
                        identified wetlands functions; and
                          ``(iv) there is unlikely to be an overriding 
                        public interest in the use of such wetlands for 
                        purposes other than conservation;
                  ``(B) classify as type B wetlands those wetlands that 
                provide habitat for a significant population of wetland 
                dependent wildlife or provide other significant 
                wetlands functions, including significant enhancement 
                or protection of water quality or significant natural 
                flood control; and
                  ``(C) classify as type C wetlands all wetlands that--
                          ``(i) serve limited wetlands functions;
                          ``(ii) serve marginal wetlands functions but 
                        which exist in such abundance that regulation 
                        of activities in such wetlands is not necessary 
                        for conserving important wetlands functions;
                          ``(iii) are prior converted cropland;
                          ``(iv) are fastlands; or
                          ``(v) are wetlands within industrial, 
                        commercial, or residential complexes or other 
                        intensely developed areas that do not serve 
                        significant wetlands functions as a result of 
                        such location.
          ``(4) Request for determination of jurisdiction.--
                  ``(A) In general.--A person who holds an ownership 
                interest in property, or who has written authorization 
                from such a person, may submit a request to the 
                Secretary identifying the property and requesting the 
                Secretary to make one or more of the following 
                determinations with respect to the property:
                          ``(i) Whether the property contains waters of 
                        the United States.
                          ``(ii) If the determination under clause (i) 
                        is made, whether any portion of the waters 
                        meets the requirements for delineation as 
                        wetland under subsection (g).
                          ``(iii) If the determination under clause 
                        (ii) is made, the classification of each 
                        wetland on the property under this subsection.
                  ``(B) Provision of information.--The person shall 
                provide such additional information as may be necessary 
                to make each determination requested under subparagraph 
                (A).
                  ``(C) Determination and notification by the 
                secretary.--Not later than 90 days after receipt of a 
                request under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall--
                          ``(i) notify the person submitting the 
                        request of each determination made by the 
                        Secretary pursuant to the request; and
                          ``(ii) provide written documentation of each 
                        determination and the basis for each 
                        determination.
                  ``(D) Authority to seek immediate review.--Any person 
                authorized under this paragraph to request a 
                jurisdictional determination may seek immediate 
                judicial review of any such jurisdictional 
                determination or may proceed under subsection (i).
          ``(5) De novo determination after advance classification.--
        Within 30 days of receipt of notice of an advance 
        classification by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(B) of this 
        subsection, an applicant may request the Secretary to make a de 
        novo determination of the classification of wetlands that are 
        the subject of such notice.
  ``(d) Right to Compensation.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Federal Government shall compensate an 
        owner of property whose use of any portion of that property has 
        been limited by an agency action under this section that 
        diminishes the fair market value of that portion by 20 percent 
        or more. The amount of the compensation shall equal the 
        diminution in value that resulted from the agency action. If 
        the diminution in value of a portion of that property is 
        greater than 50 percent, at the option of the owner, the 
        Federal Government shall buy that portion of the property for 
        its fair market value.
          ``(2) Duration of limitation on use.--Property with respect 
        to which compensation has been paid under this section shall 
        not thereafter be used contrary to the limitation imposed by 
        the agency action, even if that action is later rescinded or 
        otherwise vitiated. However, if that action is later rescinded 
        or otherwise vitiated, and the owner elects to refund the 
        amount of the compensation, adjusted for inflation, to the 
        Treasury of the United States, the property may be so used.
          ``(3) Effect of state law.--If a use is a nuisance as defined 
        by the law of a State or is already prohibited under a local 
        zoning ordinance, no compensation shall be made under this 
        section with respect to a limitation on that use.
          ``(4) Exceptions.--
                  ``(A) Prevention of hazard to health or safety or 
                damage to specific property.--No compensation shall be 
                made under this section with respect to an agency 
                action the primary purpose of which is to prevent an 
                identifiable--
                          ``(i) hazard to public health or safety; or
                          ``(ii) damage to specific property other than 
                        the property whose use is limited.
                  ``(B) Navigation servitude.--No compensation shall be 
                made under this section with respect to an agency 
                action pursuant to the Federal navigation servitude, as 
                defined by the courts of the United States, except to 
                the extent such servitude is interpreted to apply to 
                wetlands.
          ``(5) Procedure.--
                  ``(A) Request of owner.--An owner seeking 
                compensation under this section shall make a written 
                request for compensation to the agency whose agency 
                action resulted in the limitation. No such request may 
                be made later than 180 days after the owner receives 
                actual notice of that agency action.
                  ``(B) Negotiations.--The agency may bargain with that 
                owner to establish the amount of the compensation. If 
                the agency and the owner agree to such an amount, the 
                agency shall promptly pay the owner the amount agreed 
                upon.
                  ``(C) Choice of remedies.--If, not later than 180 
                days after the written request is made, the parties do 
                not come to an agreement as to the right to and amount 
                of compensation, the owner may choose to take the 
                matter to binding arbitration or seek compensation in a 
                civil action.
                  ``(D) Arbitration.--The procedures that govern the 
                arbitration shall, as nearly as practicable, be those 
                established under title 9, United States Code, for 
                arbitration proceedings to which that title applies. An 
                award made in such arbitration shall include a 
                reasonable attorney's fee and other arbitration costs 
                (including appraisal fees). The agency shall promptly 
                pay any award made to the owner.
                  ``(E) Civil action.--An owner who does not choose 
                arbitration, or who does not receive prompt payment 
                when required by this section, may obtain appropriate 
                relief in a civil action against the agency. An owner 
                who prevails in a civil action under this section shall 
                be entitled to, and the agency shall be liable for, a 
                reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs 
                (including appraisal fees). The court shall award 
                interest on the amount of any compensation from the 
                time of the limitation.
                  ``(F) Source of payments.--Any payment made under 
                this section to an owner and any judgment obtained by 
                an owner in a civil action under this section shall, 
                notwithstanding any other provision of law, be made 
                from the annual appropriation of the agency whose 
                action occasioned the payment or judgment. If the 
                agency action resulted from a requirement imposed by 
                another agency, then the agency making the payment or 
                satisfying the judgment may seek partial or complete 
                reimbursement from the appropriated funds of the other 
                agency. For this purpose the head of the agency 
                concerned may transfer or reprogram any appropriated 
                funds available to the agency. If insufficient funds 
                exist for the payment or to satisfy the judgment, it 
                shall be the duty of the head of the agency to seek the 
                appropriation of such funds for the next fiscal year.
          ``(6) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, any obligation of the United States to make any payment 
        under this section shall be subject to the availability of 
        appropriations.
          ``(7) Duty of notice to owners.--Whenever an agency takes an 
        agency action limiting the use of private property, the agency 
        shall give appropriate notice to the owners of that property 
        directly affected explaining their rights under this section 
        and the procedures for obtaining any compensation that may be 
        due to them under this section.
          ``(8) Rules of construction.--
                  ``(A) Effect on constitutional right to 
                compensation.--Nothing in this section shall be 
                construed to limit any right to compensation that 
                exists under the Constitution, laws of the United 
                States, or laws of any State.
                  ``(B) Effect of payment.--Payment of compensation 
                under this section (other than when the property is 
                bought by the Federal Government at the option of the 
                owner) shall not confer any rights on the Federal 
                Government other than the limitation on use resulting 
                from the agency action.
          ``(9) Treatment of certain actions.--A diminution in value 
        under this subsection shall apply to surface interests in lands 
        only or water rights allocated under State law; except that--
                  ``(A) if the Secretary determines that the 
                exploration for or development of oil and gas or 
                mineral interests is not compatible with limitations on 
                use related to the surface interests in lands that have 
                been classified as type A or type B wetlands located 
                above such oil and gas or mineral interests (or located 
                adjacent to such oil and gas or mineral interests where 
                such adjacent lands are necessary to provide reasonable 
                access to such interests), the Secretary shall notify 
                the owner of such interests that the owner may elect to 
                receive compensation for such interests under paragraph 
                (1); and
                  ``(B) the failure to provide reasonable access to oil 
                and gas or mineral interests located beneath or 
                adjacent to surface interests of type A or type B 
                wetlands shall be deemed a diminution in value of such 
                oil and gas or mineral interests.
          ``(10) Jurisdiction.--The arbitrator or court under paragraph 
        (5)(D) or (5)(E) of this subsection, as the case may be, shall 
        have jurisdiction, in the case of oil and gas or mineral 
        interests, to require the United States to provide reasonable 
        access in, across, or through lands that may be the subject of 
        a diminution in value under this subsection solely for the 
        purpose of undertaking activity necessary to determine the 
        value of the interests diminished and to provide other 
        equitable remedies deemed appropriate.
          ``(11) Limitations on statutory construction.--No action 
        under this subsection shall be construed--
                  ``(A) to impose any obligation on any State or 
                political subdivision thereof to compensate any person, 
                even in the event that the Secretary has approved a 
                land management plan under subsection (f)(2) or an 
                individual and general permit program under subsection 
                (l); or
                  ``(B) to alter or supersede requirements governing 
                use of water applicable under State law.
  ``(e) Requirements Applicable to Permitted Activity.--
          ``(1) Issuance or denial of permits.--Following the 
        determination of wetlands classification pursuant to subsection 
        (c) if applicable, and after compliance with the requirements 
        of subsection (d) if applicable, the Secretary may issue or 
        deny permits for authorization to undertake activities in 
        wetlands or waters of the United States in accordance with the 
        requirements of this subsection.
          ``(2) Type a wetlands.--
                  ``(A) Sequential analysis.--The Secretary shall 
                determine whether to issue a permit for an activity in 
                waters of the United States classified under subsection 
                (c) as type A wetlands based on a sequential analysis 
                that seeks, to the maximum extent practicable, to--
                          ``(i) avoid adverse impact on the wetlands;
                          ``(ii) minimize such adverse impact on 
                        wetlands functions that cannot be avoided; and
                          ``(iii) compensate for any loss of wetland 
                        functions that cannot be avoided or minimized.
                  ``(B) Mitigation terms and conditions.--Any permit 
                issued authorizing activities in type A wetlands may 
                contain such terms and conditions concerning mitigation 
                (including those applicable under paragraph (3) for 
                type B wetlands) that the Secretary deems appropriate 
                to prevent the unacceptable loss or degradation of type 
                A wetlands. The Secretary shall deem the mitigation 
                requirement of this section to be met with respect to 
                activities in type A wetlands if such activities (i) 
                are carried out in accordance with a State-approved 
                reclamation plan or permit which requires recontouring 
                and revegetation following mining, and (ii) will result 
                in overall environmental benefits being achieved.
          ``(3) Type b wetlands.--
                  ``(A) General rule.--The Secretary may issue a permit 
                authorizing activities in type B wetlands if the 
                Secretary finds that issuance of the permit is in the 
                public interest, balancing the reasonably foreseeable 
                benefits and detriments resulting from the issuance of 
                the permit. The permit shall be subject to such terms 
                and conditions as the Secretary finds are necessary to 
                carry out the purposes of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
                Conservation and Management Act of 1995. In determining 
                whether or not to issue the permit and whether or not 
                specific terms and conditions are necessary to avoid a 
                significant loss of wetlands functions, the Secretary 
                shall consider the following factors:
                          ``(i) The quality and quantity of significant 
                        functions served by the areas to be affected.
                          ``(ii) The opportunities to reduce impacts 
                        through cost effective design to minimize use 
                        of wetlands areas.
                          ``(iii) The costs of mitigation requirements 
                        and the social, recreational, and economic 
                        benefits associated with the proposed activity, 
                        including local, regional, or national needs 
                        for improved or expanded infrastructure, 
                        minerals, energy, food production, or 
                        recreation.
                          ``(iv) The ability of the permittee to 
                        mitigate wetlands loss or degradation as 
                        measured by wetlands functions.
                          ``(v) The environmental benefit, measured by 
                        wetlands functions, that may occur through 
                        mitigation efforts, including restoring, 
                        preserving, enhancing, or creating wetlands 
                        values and functions.
                          ``(vi) The marginal impact of the proposed 
                        activity on the watershed of which such 
                        wetlands are a part.
                          ``(vii) Whether the impact on the wetlands is 
                        temporary or permanent.
                  ``(B) Determination of project purpose.--In 
                considering an application for activities on type B 
                wetlands, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that 
                the project purpose as defined by the applicant shall 
                be binding upon the Secretary. The definition of 
                project purpose for projects sponsored by public 
                agencies shall be binding upon the Secretary, subject 
                to the authority of the Secretary to impose mitigation 
                requirements to minimize impacts on wetlands values and 
                functions, including cost effective redesign of 
                projects on the proposed project site.
                  ``(C) Mitigation requirements.--Except as otherwise 
                provided in this section, requirements for mitigation 
                shall be imposed when the Secretary finds that 
                activities undertaken under this section will result in 
                the loss or degradation of type B wetlands functions 
                where such loss or degradation is not a temporary or 
                incidental impact. When determining mitigation 
                requirements in any specific case, the Secretary shall 
                take into consideration the type of wetlands affected, 
                the character of the impact on wetland functions, 
                whether any adverse effects on wetlands are of a 
                permanent or temporary nature, and the cost 
                effectiveness of such mitigation and shall seek to 
                minimize the costs of such mitigation. Such mitigation 
                requirement shall be calculated based upon the specific 
                impact of a particular project. The Secretary shall 
                deem the mitigation requirement of this section to be 
                met with respect to activities in type B wetlands if 
                such activities (i) are carried out in accordance with 
                a State-approved reclamation plan or permit which 
                requires recontouring and revegetation following 
                mining, and (ii) will result in overall environmental 
                benefits being achieved.
                  ``(D) Rules governing mitigation.--In accordance with 
                subsection (j), the Secretary shall issue rules 
                governing requirements for mitigation for activities 
                occurring in wetlands that allow for--
                          ``(i) minimization of impacts through project 
                        design in the proposed project site consistent 
                        with the project's purpose, provisions for 
                        compensatory mitigation, if any, and other 
                        terms and conditions necessary and appropriate 
                        in the public interest;
                          ``(ii) preservation or donation of type A 
                        wetlands or type B wetlands (where title has 
                        not been acquired by the United States and no 
                        compensation under subsection (d) for such 
                        wetlands has been provided) as mitigation for 
                        activities that alter or degrade wetlands;
                          ``(iii) enhancement or restoration of 
                        degraded wetlands as compensation for wetlands 
                        lost or degraded through permitted activity;
                          ``(iv) creation of wetlands as compensation 
                        for wetlands lost or degraded through permitted 
                        activity if conditions are imposed that have a 
                        reasonable likelihood of being successful;
                          ``(v) compensation through contribution to a 
                        mitigation bank program established pursuant to 
                        paragraph (4);
                          ``(vi) offsite compensatory mitigation if 
                        such mitigation contributes to the restoration, 
                        enhancement or creation of significant wetlands 
                        functions on a watershed basis and is balanced 
                        with the effects that the proposed activity 
                        will have on the specific site; except that 
                        offsite compensatory mitigation, if any, shall 
                        be required only within the State within which 
                        the proposed activity is to occur, and shall, 
                        to the extent practicable, be within the 
                        watershed within which the proposed activity is 
                        to occur, unless otherwise consistent with a 
                        State wetlands management plan;
                          ``(vii) contribution of in-kind value 
                        acceptable to the Secretary and otherwise 
                        authorized by law;
                          ``(viii) in areas subject to wetlands loss, 
                        the construction of coastal protection and 
                        enhancement projects;
                          ``(ix) contribution of resources of more than 
                        one permittee toward a single mitigation 
                        project; and
                          ``(x) other mitigation measures, including 
                        contributions of other than in-kind value 
                        referred to in clause (vii), determined by the 
                        Secretary to be appropriate in the public 
                        interest and consistent with the requirements 
                        and purposes of this Act.
                  ``(E) Limitations on requiring mitigation.--
                Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (C), the 
                Secretary may determine not to impose requirements for 
                compensatory mitigation if the Secretary finds that--
                          ``(i) the adverse impacts of a permitted 
                        activity are limited;
                          ``(ii) the failure to impose compensatory 
                        mitigation requirements is compatible with 
                        maintaining wetlands functions;
                          ``(iii) no practicable and reasonable means 
                        of mitigation are available;
                          ``(iv) there is an abundance of similar 
                        significant wetlands functions and values in or 
                        near the area in which the proposed activity is 
                        to occur that will continue to serve the 
                        functions lost or degraded as a result of such 
                        activity, taking into account the impacts of 
                        such proposed activity and the cumulative 
                        impacts of similar activity in the area;
                          ``(v) the temporary character of the impacts 
                        and the use of minimization techniques make 
                        compensatory mitigation unnecessary to protect 
                        significant wetlands values; or
                          ``(vi) a waiver from requirements for 
                        compensatory mitigation is necessary to prevent 
                        special hardship.
          ``(4) Mitigation banks.--
                  ``(A) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after 
                the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, after 
                providing notice and opportunity for public review and 
                comment, the Secretary shall issue regulations for the 
                establishment, use, maintenance, and oversight of 
                mitigation banks. The regulations shall be developed in 
                consultation with the heads of other appropriate 
                Federal agencies.
                  ``(B) Provisions and requirements.--The regulations 
                issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall ensure that 
                each mitigation bank--
                          ``(i) provides for the chemical, physical, 
                        and biological functions of wetlands or waters 
                        of the United States which are lost as a result 
                        of authorized adverse impacts to wetlands or 
                        other waters of the United States;
                          ``(ii) to the extent practicable and 
                        environmentally desirable, provides in-kind 
                        replacement of lost wetlands functions and be 
                        located in, or in proximity to, the same 
                        watershed or designated geographic area as the 
                        affected wetlands or waters of the United 
                        States;
                          ``(iii) be operated by a public or private 
                        entity which has the financial capability to 
                        meet the requirements of this paragraph, 
                        including the deposit of a performance bond or 
                        other appropriate demonstration of financial 
                        responsibility to support the long-term 
                        maintenance of the bank, fulfill 
                        responsibilities for long-term monitoring, 
                        maintenance, and protection, and provide for 
                        the long-term security of ownership interests 
                        of wetlands and uplands on which projects are 
                        conducted to protect the wetlands functions 
                        associated with the mitigation bank;
                          ``(iv) employ consistent and scientifically 
                        sound methods to determine debits by evaluating 
                        wetlands functions, project impacts, and 
                        duration of the impact at the sites of proposed 
                        permits for authorized activities pursuant to 
                        this section and to determine credits based on 
                        wetlands functions at the site of the 
                        mitigation bank;
                          ``(v) provide for the transfer of credits for 
                        mitigation that has been performed and for 
                        mitigation that shall be performed within a 
                        designated time in the future, provided that 
                        financial bonds shall be posted in sufficient 
                        amount to ensure that the mitigation will be 
                        performed in the case of default; and
                          ``(vi) provide opportunity for public notice 
                        of and comment on proposals for the mitigation 
                        banks; except that any process utilized by a 
                        mitigation bank to obtain a permit authorizing 
                        operations under this section before the date 
                        of the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
                        Conservation and Management Act of 1995 
                        satisfies the requirement for such public 
                        notice and comment.
          ``(5) Procedures and deadlines for final action.--
                  ``(A) Opportunity for public comment.--Not later than 
                15 days after receipt of a complete application for a 
                permit under this section, together with information 
                necessary to consider such application, the Secretary 
                shall publish notice that the application has been 
                received and shall provide opportunity for public 
                comment and, to the extent appropriate, opportunity for 
                a public hearing on the issuance of the permit.
                  ``(B) General procedures.--In the case of any 
                application for authorization to undertake activities 
                in wetlands or waters of the United States that are not 
                eligible for treatment on an expedited basis pursuant 
                to paragraph (8), final action by the Secretary shall 
                occur within 90 days following the date such 
                application is filed, unless--
                          ``(i) the Secretary and the applicant agree 
                        that such final action shall occur within a 
                        longer period of time;
                          ``(ii) the Secretary determines that an 
                        additional, specified period of time is 
                        necessary to permit the Secretary to comply 
                        with other applicable Federal law; except that 
                        if the Secretary is required under the National 
                        Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
                        4321 et seq.) to prepare an environmental 
                        impact statement, with respect to the 
                        application, the final action shall occur not 
                        later than 45 days following the date such 
                        statement is filed; or
                          ``(iii) the Secretary, within 15 days from 
                        the date such application is received, notifies 
                        the applicant that such application does not 
                        contain all information necessary to allow the 
                        Secretary to consider such application and 
                        identifies any necessary additional 
                        information, in which case, the provisions of 
                        subparagraph (C) shall apply.
                  ``(C) Special rule when additional information is 
                required.--Upon the receipt of a request for additional 
                information under subparagraph (B)(iii), the applicant 
                shall supply such additional information and shall 
                advise the Secretary that the application contains all 
                requested information and is therefore complete. The 
                Secretary may--
                          ``(i) within 30 days of the receipt of notice 
                        of the applicant that the application is 
                        complete, determine that the application does 
                        not contain all requested additional 
                        information and, on that basis, deny the 
                        application without prejudice to resubmission; 
                        or
                          ``(ii) within 90 days from the date that the 
                        applicant provides notification to the 
                        Secretary that the application is complete, 
                        review the application and take final action.
                  ``(D) Effect of not meeting deadline.--If the 
                Secretary fails to take final action on an application 
                under this paragraph within 90 days from the date that 
                the applicant provides notification to the Secretary 
                that such application is complete, a permit shall be 
                presumed to be granted authorizing the activities 
                proposed in such application under such terms and 
                conditions as are stated in such completed application.
          ``(6) Type c wetlands.--Activities in wetlands that have been 
        classified as type C wetlands by the Secretary may be 
        undertaken without authorization required under subsection (a) 
        of this section.
          ``(7) States with substantial conserved wetlands.--
                  ``(A) In general.--With respect to type A and type B 
                wetlands in States with substantial conserved wetlands 
                areas, at the option of the permit applicant, the 
                Secretary shall issue permits authorizing activities in 
                such wetlands pursuant to this paragraph. Final action 
                on issuance of such permits shall be in accordance with 
                the procedures and deadlines of paragraph (5). The 
                Secretary may include conditions or requirements for 
                minimization of adverse impacts to wetlands functions 
                when minimization is economically practicable. No 
                permit to which this paragraph applies shall include 
                conditions, requirements, or standards for mitigation 
                to compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands or waters 
                of the United States or conditions, requirements, or 
                standards for avoidance of adverse impacts to wetlands 
                or waters of the United States.
                  ``(B) Economic base lands.--Upon application by the 
                owner of economic base lands in a State with 
                substantial conserved wetlands areas, the Secretary 
                shall issue individual and general permits to owners of 
                such lands for activities in wetlands or waters of the 
                United States. The Secretary shall reduce the 
                requirements of subparagraph (A)--
                          ``(i) to allow economic base lands to be 
                        beneficially used to create and sustain 
                        economic activity; and
                          ``(ii) in the case of lands owned by Alaska 
                        Native entities, to reflect the social and 
                        economic needs of Alaska Natives to utilize 
                        economic base lands.
                The Secretary shall consult with and provide assistance 
                to the Alaska Natives (including Alaska Native 
                Corporations) in promulgation and administration of 
                policies and regulations under this section.
          ``(8) General permits.--
                  ``(A) General authority.--The Secretary may issue, by 
                rule in accordance with subsection (j), general permits 
                on a programmatic, State, regional, or nationwide basis 
                for any category of activities involving an activity in 
                wetlands or waters of the United States if the 
                Secretary determines that such activities are similar 
                in nature and that such activities, when performed 
                separately and cumulatively, will not result in the 
                significant loss of ecologically significant wetlands 
                values and functions.
                  ``(B) Procedures.--Permits issued under this 
                paragraph shall include procedures for expedited review 
                of eligibility for such permits (if such review is 
                required) and may include requirements for reporting 
                and mitigation. To the extent that a proposed activity 
                requires a determination by the Secretary as to the 
                eligibility to qualify for a general permit under this 
                subsection, such determination shall be made within 30 
                days of the date of submission of the application for 
                such qualification, or the application shall be treated 
                as being approved.
                  ``(C) Compensatory mitigation.--Requirements for 
                compensatory mitigation for general permits may be 
                imposed where necessary to offset the significant loss 
                or degradation of significant wetlands functions where 
                such loss or degradation is not a temporary or 
                incidental impact. Such compensatory mitigation shall 
                be calculated based upon the specific impact of a 
                particular project.
                  ``(D) Grandfather of existing general permits.--
                General permits in effect on day before the date of the 
                enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation 
                and Management Act of 1995 shall remain in effect until 
                otherwise modified by the Secretary.
                  ``(E) States with substantial conserved lands.--Upon 
                application by a State or local authority in a State 
                with substantial conserved wetlands areas, the 
                Secretary shall issue a general permit applicable to 
                such authority for activities in wetlands or waters of 
                the United States. No permit issued pursuant to this 
                subparagraph shall include conditions, requirements, or 
                standards for mitigation to compensate for adverse 
                impacts to wetlands or waters of the United States or 
                shall include conditions, requirements, or standards 
                for avoidance of adverse impacts of wetlands or waters 
                of the United States.
          ``(9) Other waters of the united states.--The Secretary may 
        issue a permit authorizing activities in waters of the United 
        States (other than those classified as type A, B, or C wetlands 
        under this section) if the Secretary finds that issuance of the 
        permit is in the public interest, balancing the reasonably 
        foreseeable benefits and detriments resulting from the issuance 
        of the permit. The permit shall be subject to such terms and 
        conditions as the Secretary finds are necessary to carry out 
        the purposes of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
        Management Act of 1995. In determining whether or not to issue 
        the permit and whether or not specific terms and conditions are 
        necessary to carry out such purposes, the Secretary shall 
        consider the factors set forth in paragraph (3)(A) as they 
        apply to nonwetlands areas and such other provisions of 
        paragraph (3) as the Secretary determines are appropriate to 
        apply to nonwetlands areas.
  ``(f) Activities not Requiring Permit.--
          ``(1) In general.--Activities undertaken in any wetlands or 
        waters of the United States are exempt from the requirements of 
        this section and are not prohibited by or otherwise subject to 
        regulation under this section or section 301 or 402 of this Act 
        (except effluent standards or prohibitions under section 307 of 
        this Act) if such activities--
                  ``(A) result from normal farming, silviculture, 
                aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices, 
                including but not limited to plowing, seeding, 
                cultivating, haying, grazing, normal maintenance 
                activities, minor drainage, burning of vegetation in 
                connection with such activities, harvesting for the 
                production of food, fiber, and forest products, or 
                upland soil and water conservation practices;
                  ``(B) are for the purpose of maintenance, including 
                emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of 
                currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, 
                levees, flood control channels or other engineered 
                flood control facilities, water control structures, 
                water supply reservoirs (where such maintenance 
                involves periodic water level drawdowns) which provide 
                water predominantly to public drinking water systems, 
                groins, riprap, breakwaters, utility distribution and 
                transmission lines, causeways, and bridge abutments or 
                approaches, and transportation structures;
                  ``(C) are for the purpose of construction or 
                maintenance of farm, stock or aquaculture ponds, 
                wastewater retention facilities (including dikes and 
                berms) that are used by concentrated animal feeding 
                operations, or irrigation canals and ditches or the 
                maintenance of drainage ditches;
                  ``(D) are for the purpose of construction of 
                temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site, 
                or the construction of any upland dredged material 
                disposal area, which does not include placement of fill 
                material into the navigable waters;
                  ``(E) are for the purpose of construction or 
                maintenance of farm roads or forest roads, railroad 
                lines of up to 10 miles in length, or temporary roads 
                for moving mining equipment, access roads for utility 
                distribution and transmission lines if such roads or 
                railroad lines are constructed and maintained, in 
                accordance with best management practices, to assure 
                that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and 
                biological characteristics of the waters are not 
                impaired, that the reach of the waters is not reduced, 
                and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment 
                will be otherwise minimized;
                  ``(F) are undertaken on farmed wetlands, except that 
                any change in use of such land for the purpose of 
                undertaking activities that are not exempt from 
                regulation under this subsection shall be subject to 
                the requirements of this section to the extent that 
                such farmed wetlands are `wetlands' under this section;
                  ``(G) result from any activity with respect to which 
                a State has an approved program under section 208(b)(4) 
                of this Act which meets the requirements of 
                subparagraphs (B) and (C) of such section;
                  ``(H) are consistent with a State or local land 
                management plan submitted to the Secretary and approved 
                pursuant to paragraph (2);
                  ``(I) are undertaken in connection with a marsh 
                management and conservation program in a coastal parish 
                in the State of Louisiana where such program has been 
                approved by the Governor of such State or the designee 
                of the Governor;
                  ``(J) are undertaken on lands or involve activities 
                within a State's coastal zone which are excluded from 
                regulation under a State coastal zone management 
                program approved under the Coastal Zone Management Act 
                of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.);
                  ``(K) are undertaken in incidentally created 
                wetlands, unless such incidentally created wetlands 
                have exhibited wetlands functions and values for more 
                than 5 years in which case activities undertaken in 
                such wetlands shall be subject to the requirements of 
                this section;
                  ``(L) are for the purpose of preserving and enhancing 
                aviation safety or are undertaken in order to prevent 
                an airport hazard;
                  ``(M) result from aggregate or clay mining activities 
                in wetlands conducted pursuant to a State or Federal 
                permit that requires the reclamation of such affected 
                wetlands if such reclamation will be completed within 5 
                years of the commencement of activities at the site 
                and, upon completion of such reclamation, the wetlands 
                will support wetlands functions equivalent to the 
                functions supported by the wetlands at the time of 
                commencement of such activities;
                  ``(N) are for the placement of a structural member 
                for a pile-supported structure, such as a pier or dock, 
                or for a linear project such as a bridge, transmission 
                or distribution line footing, powerline structure, or 
                elevated or other walkway;
                  ``(O) are for the placement of a piling in waters of 
                the United States in a circumstance that involves--
                          ``(i) a linear project described in 
                        subparagraph (N); or
                          ``(ii) a structure such as a pier, boathouse, 
                        wharf, marina, lighthouse, or individual house 
                        built on stilts solely to reduce the potential 
                        of flooding;
                  ``(P) are for the clearing (including mechanized 
                clearing) of vegetation within a right-of-way 
                associated with the development and maintenance of a 
                transmission or distribution line or other powerline 
                structure or for the maintenance of water supply 
                reservoirs which provide water predominantly to public 
                drinking water systems;
                  ``(Q) are undertaken in or affecting waterfilled 
                depressions created in uplands incidental to 
                construction activity, or are undertaken in or 
                affecting pits excavated in uplands for the purpose of 
                obtaining fill, sand, gravel, aggregates, or minerals, 
                unless and until the construction or excavation 
                operation is abandoned; or
                  ``(R) are undertaken in a State with substantial 
                conserved wetlands areas and--
                          ``(i) are for purposes of providing critical 
                        infrastructure, including water and sewer 
                        systems, airports, roads, communication sites, 
                        fuel storage sites, landfills, housing, 
                        hospitals, medical clinics, schools, and other 
                        community infrastructure;
                          ``(ii) are for construction and maintenance 
                        of log transfer facilities associated with log 
                        transportation activities;
                          ``(iii) are for construction of tailings 
                        impoundments utilized for treatment facilities 
                        (as determined by the development document) for 
                        the mining subcategory for which the tailings 
                        impoundment is constructed; or
                          ``(iv) are for construction of ice pads and 
                        ice roads and for purposes of snow storage and 
                        removal.
          ``(2) State or local management plan.--Any State or political 
        subdivision thereof acting pursuant to State authorization may 
        develop a land management plan with respect to lands that 
        include identified wetlands. The State or local government 
        agency may submit any such plan to the Secretary for review and 
        approval. The Secretary shall, within 60 days, notify in 
        writing the designated State or local official of approval or 
        disapproval of any such plan. The Secretary shall approve any 
        plan that is consistent with the purposes of this section. No 
        person shall be entitled to judicial review of the decision of 
        the Secretary to approve or disapprove a land management plan 
        under this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
        construed to alter, limit, or supersede the authority of a 
        State or political subdivision thereof to establish land 
        management plans for purposes other than the provisions of this 
        subsection.
  ``(g) Rules for Delineating Wetlands.--
          ``(1) Standards.--
                  ``(A) Issuance of rule.--The Secretary is authorized 
                and directed to establish standards, by rule in 
                accordance with subsection (j), that shall govern the 
                delineation of lands as `wetlands' for purposes of this 
                section. Such rules shall be established after 
                consultation with the heads of other appropriate 
                Federal agencies and shall be binding on all Federal 
                agencies in connection with the administration or 
                implementation of any provision of this section. The 
                standards for delineation of wetlands and any decision 
                of the Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture (in the 
                case of agricultural lands and associated 
                nonagricultural lands), or any other Federal officer or 
                agency made in connection with the administration of 
                this section shall comply with the requirements for 
                delineation of wetlands set forth in subparagraphs (B) 
                and (C).
                  ``(B) Exceptions.--The standards established by rule 
                or applied in any case for purposes of this section 
                shall ensure that lands are delineated as wetlands only 
                if such lands are found to be `wetlands' under section 
                502 of this Act; except that such standards may not--
                          ``(i) result in the delineation of lands as 
                        wetlands unless clear evidence of wetlands 
                        hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric 
                        soil are found to be present during the period 
                        in which such delineation is made, which 
                        delineation shall be conducted during the 
                        growing season unless otherwise requested by 
                        the applicant;
                          ``(ii) result in the classification of 
                        vegetation as hydrophytic if such vegetation is 
                        equally adapted to dry or wet soil conditions 
                        or is more typically adapted to dry soil 
                        conditions than to wet soil conditions;
                          ``(iii) result in the classification of lands 
                        as wetlands unless some obligate wetlands 
                        vegetation is found to be present during the 
                        period of delineation; except that if such 
                        vegetation has been removed for the purpose of 
                        evading jurisdiction under this section, this 
                        clause shall not apply;
                          ``(iv) result in the conclusion that wetlands 
                        hydrology is present unless water is found to 
                        be present at the surface of such lands for 21 
                        consecutive days in the growing seasons in a 
                        majority of the years for which records are 
                        available; and
                          ``(v) result in the classification of lands 
                        as wetlands that are temporarily or 
                        incidentally created as a result of adjacent 
                        development activity.
                  ``(C) Normal circumstances.--In addition to the 
                requirements of subparagraph (B), any standards 
                established by rule or applied to delineate wetlands 
                for purposes of this section shall provide that `normal 
                circumstances' shall be determined on the basis of the 
                factual circumstances in existence at the time a 
                classification is made under subsection (h) or at the 
                time of application under subsection (e), whichever is 
                applicable, if such circumstances have not been altered 
                by an activity prohibited under this section.
          ``(2) Land area cap for type a wetlands.--No more than 20 
        percent of any county, parish, or borough shall be classified 
        as type A wetlands. Type A wetlands in Federal or State 
        ownership (including type A wetlands in units of the National 
        Wildlife Refuge System, the National Park System, and lands 
        held in conservation easements) shall be included in 
        calculating the percent of type A wetlands in a county, parish, 
        or borough.
          ``(3) Agricultural lands.--
                  ``(A) Delineation by secretary of agriculture.--For 
                purposes of this section, wetlands located on 
                agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural lands 
                shall be delineated solely by the Secretary of 
                Agriculture in accordance with section 1222(j) of the 
                Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(j)).
                  ``(B) Exemption of lands exempted under food security 
                act.--Any area of agricultural land or any activities 
                related to the land determined to be exempt from the 
                requirements of subtitle C of title XII of the Food 
                Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall 
                also be exempt from the requirements of this section 
                for such period of time as those lands are used as 
                agricultural lands.
                  ``(C) Effect of appeal determination pursuant to food 
                security act.--Any area of agricultural land or any 
                activities related to the land determined to be exempt 
                pursuant to an appeal taken pursuant to subtitle C of 
                title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
                3821 et seq.) shall be exempt under this section for 
                such period of time as those lands are used as 
                agricultural lands.
  ``(h) Mapping and Public Notice Requirements.--
          ``(1) Provision of public notice.--Not later than 90 days 
        after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
        Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the Secretary shall 
        provide the court of each county, parish, or borough in which 
        the wetland subject to classification under subsection (c) is 
        located, a notice for posting near the property records of the 
        county, parish, or borough. The notice shall--
                  ``(A) state that wetlands regulated under this 
                section may be located in the county, parish, or 
                borough;
                  ``(B) provide an explanation understandable to the 
                general public of how wetlands are delineated and 
                classified;
                  ``(C) describe the requirements and restrictions of 
                the regulatory program under this section; and
                  ``(D) provide instructions on how to obtain a 
                delineation and classification of wetlands under this 
                section.
          ``(2) Provision of delineation determinations.--On completion 
        under this section of a delineation and classification of 
        property that contains wetlands or a delineation of property 
        that contains waters of the United States that are not 
        wetlands, the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of wetlands 
        located on agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural 
        lands, and the Secretary, in the case of other lands, shall--
                  ``(A) file a copy of the delineation, including the 
                classification of any wetland located on the property, 
                with the records of the property in the local 
                courthouse; and
                  ``(B) serve a copy of the delineation determination 
                on every owner of the property on record and any person 
                with a recorded mortgage or lien on the property.
          ``(3) Notice of enforcement actions.--The Secretary shall 
        file notice of each enforcement action under this section taken 
        with respect to private property with the records of the 
        property in the local courthouse.
          ``(4) Wetlands identification and classification project.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
                Agriculture shall undertake a project to identify and 
                classify wetlands in the United States that are 
                regulated under this section. The Secretaries shall 
                complete such project not later than 10 years after the 
                date of the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
                Conservation and Management Act of 1995.
                  ``(B) Applicability of delineation standards.--In 
                conducting the project under this section, the 
                Secretaries shall identify and classify wetlands in 
                accordance with standards for delineation of wetlands 
                established by the Secretaries under subsection (g).
                  ``(C) Public hearings.--In conducting the project 
                under this section, the Secretaries shall provide 
                notice and an opportunity for a public hearing in each 
                county, parish or borough of a State before completion 
                of identification and classification of wetlands in 
                such county, parish, or borough.
                  ``(D) Publication.--Promptly after completion of 
                identification and classification of wetlands in a 
                county, parish, or borough under this section, the 
                Secretaries shall have published information on such 
                identification and classification in the Federal 
                Register and in publications of wide circulation and 
                take other steps reasonably necessary to ensure that 
                such information is available to the public.
                  ``(E) Reports.--The Secretaries shall report to 
                Congress on implementation of the project to be 
                conducted under this section not later than 2 years 
                after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
                Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995 and 
                annually thereafter.
                  ``(F) Recordation.--Any classification of lands as 
                wetlands under this section shall, to the maximum 
                extent practicable, be recorded on the property records 
                in the county, parish, or borough in which such 
                wetlands are located.
  ``(i) Administrative Appeals.--
          ``(1) Regulations establishing procedures.--Not later than 1 
        year after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
        Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the Secretary 
        shall, after providing notice and opportunity for public 
        comment, issue regulations establishing procedures pursuant to 
        which--
                  ``(A) a landowner may appeal a determination of 
                regulatory jurisdiction under this section with respect 
                to a parcel of the landowner's property;
                  ``(B) a landowner may appeal a wetlands 
                classification under this section with respect to a 
                parcel of the landowner's property;
                  ``(C) any person may appeal a determination that the 
                proposed activity on the landowner's property is not 
                exempt under subsection (f);
                  ``(D) a landowner may appeal a determination that an 
                activity on the landowner's property does not qualify 
                under a general permit issued under this section;
                  ``(E) an applicant for a permit under this section 
                may appeal a determination made pursuant to this 
                section to deny issuance of the permit or to impose a 
                requirement under the permit; and
                  ``(F) a landowner or any other person required to 
                restore or otherwise alter a parcel of property 
                pursuant to an order issued under this section may 
                appeal such order.
          ``(2) Deadline for filing appeal.--An appeal brought pursuant 
        to this subsection shall be filed not later than 30 days after 
        the date on which the decision or action on which the appeal is 
        based occurs.
          ``(3) Deadline for decision.--An appeal brought pursuant to 
        this subsection shall be decided not later than 90 days after 
        the date on which the appeal is filed.
          ``(4) Participation in appeals process.--Any person who 
        participated in the public comment process concerning a 
        decision or action that is the subject of an appeal brought 
        pursuant to this subsection may participate in such appeal with 
        respect to those issues raised in the person's written public 
        comments.
          ``(5) Decisionmaker.--An appeal brought pursuant to this 
        subsection shall be heard and decided by an appropriate and 
        impartial official of the Federal Government, other than the 
        official who made the determination or carried out the action 
        that is the subject of the appeal.
          ``(6) Stay of penalties and mitigation.--A landowner or any 
        other person who has filed an appeal under this subsection 
        shall not be required to pay a penalty or perform mitigation or 
        restoration assessed under this section or section 309 until 
        after the appeal has been decided.
  ``(j) Administrative Provisions.--
          ``(1) Final regulations for issuance of permits.--Not later 
        than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the 
        Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, 
        the Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for comment, 
        issue (in accordance with section 553 of title 5 of the United 
        States Code and this section) final regulations for 
        implementation of this section. Such regulations shall, in 
        accordance with this section, provide--
                  ``(A) standards and procedures for the classification 
                and delineation of wetlands and procedures for 
                administrative review of any such classification or 
                delineation;
                  ``(B) standards and procedures for the review of 
                State or local land management plans and State programs 
                for the regulation of wetlands;
                  ``(C) for the issuance of general permits, including 
                programmatic, State, regional, and nationwide permits;
                  ``(D) standards and procedures for the individual 
                permit applications under this section;
                  ``(E) for enforcement of this section;
                  ``(F) guidelines for the specification of sites for 
                the disposal of dredged or fill material for 
                navigational dredging; and
                  ``(G) any other rules and regulations that the 
                Secretary deems necessary or appropriate to implement 
                the requirements of this section.
          ``(2) Navigational dredging guidelines.--Guidelines developed 
        under paragraph (1)(F) shall--
                  ``(A) be based upon criteria comparable to the 
                criteria applicable to the territorial seas, the 
                contiguous zone, and the oceans under section 403(c); 
                and
                  ``(B) ensure that with respect to the issuance of 
                permits under this section--
                          ``(i) the least costly, environmentally 
                        acceptable disposal alternative will be 
                        selected, taking into consideration cost, 
                        existing technology, short term and long term 
                        dredging requirements, and logistics;
                          ``(ii) a disposal site will be specified 
                        after comparing reasonably available upland, 
                        confined aquatic, beneficial use, and open 
                        water disposal alternatives on the basis of 
                        relative risk, environmental acceptability, 
                        economics, practicability, and current 
                        technological feasibility;
                          ``(iii) a disposal site will be specified 
                        after comparing the reasonably anticipated 
                        environmental and economic benefits of 
                        undertaking the underlying project to the 
                        status quo; and
                          ``(iv) in comparing alternatives and 
                        selection of a disposal site, management 
                        measures may be considered and utilized to 
                        limit, to the extent practicable, adverse 
                        environmental effects by employing suitable 
                        chemical, biological, or physical techniques to 
                        prevent unacceptable adverse impacts on the 
                        environment.
          ``(3) Judicial review of final regulations.--Any judicial 
        review of final regulations issued pursuant to this section and 
        the Secretary's denial of any petition for the issuance, 
        amendment, or repeal of any regulation under this section shall 
        be in accordance with sections 701 through 706 of title 5 of 
        the United States Code; except that a petition for review of 
        action of the Secretary in issuing any regulation or 
        requirement under this section or denying any petition for the 
        issuance, amendment, or repeal of any regulation under this 
        section may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals 
        for the District of Columbia, and such petition shall be filed 
        within 90 days from the date of such issuance or denial or 
        after such date if such petition for review is based solely on 
        grounds arising after such ninetieth day. Action of the 
        Secretary with respect to which review could have been obtained 
        under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review 
        in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.
          ``(4) Interim regulations.--The Secretary shall, within 90 
        days after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
        Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, issue interim 
        regulations consistent with this section to take effect 
        immediately. Notice of the interim regulations shall be 
        published in the Federal Register, and such regulations shall 
        be binding until the issuance of final regulations pursuant to 
        paragraph (1); except that the Secretary shall provide adequate 
        procedures for waiver of any provisions of such interim 
        regulations to avoid special hardship, inequity, or unfair 
        distribution of burdens or to advance the purposes of this 
        section.
          ``(5) Administration by secretary.--Except where otherwise 
        expressly provided in this section, the Secretary shall 
        administer this section. The Secretary or any other Federal 
        officer or agency in which any function under this section is 
        vested or delegated is authorized to perform any and all acts 
        (including appropriate enforcement activity), and to prescribe, 
        issue, amend, or rescind such rules or orders as such officer 
        or agency may find necessary or appropriate with this 
        subsection, subject to the requirements of this subsection.
  ``(k) Enforcement.--
          ``(1) Compliance order.--Whenever, on the basis of reliable 
        and substantial information and after reasonable inquiry, the 
        Secretary finds that any person is or may be in violation of 
        this section or of any condition or limitation set forth in a 
        permit issued by the Secretary under this section, the 
        Secretary shall issue an order requiring such persons to comply 
        with this section or with such condition or limitation.
          ``(2) Notice and other procedural requirements relating to 
        orders.--A copy of any order issued under this subsection shall 
        be sent immediately by the Secretary to the Governor of the 
        State in which the violation occurs and the Governors of other 
        affected States. The person committing the asserted violation 
        that results in issuance of the order shall be notified of the 
        issuance of the order by personal service made to the 
        appropriate person or corporate officer. The notice shall state 
        with reasonable specificity the nature of the asserted 
        violation and specify a time for compliance, not to exceed 30 
        days, which the Secretary determines is reasonable taking into 
        account the seriousness of the asserted violation and any good 
        faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements. If the 
        person receiving the notice disputes the Secretary's 
        determination, the person may file an appeal as provided in 
        subsection (i). Within 60 days of a decision which denies an 
        appeal, or within 150 days from the date of notification of 
        violation by the Secretary if no appeal is filed, the Secretary 
        shall prosecute a civil action in accordance with paragraph (3) 
        or rescind such order and be estopped from any further 
        enforcement proceedings for the same asserted violation.
          ``(3) Civil action enforcement.--The Secretary is authorized 
        to commence a civil action for appropriate relief, including a 
        permanent or temporary injunction, for any violation for which 
        the Secretary is authorized to issue a compliance order under 
        paragraph (1). Any action under this paragraph may be brought 
        in the district court of the United States for the district in 
        which the defendant is located or resides or is doing business, 
        and such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain such 
        violation and to require compliance. Notice of the commencement 
        of such action shall be given immediately to the appropriate 
        State.
          ``(4) Civil penalties.--Any person who violates any condition 
        or limitation in a permit issued by the Secretary under this 
        section and any person who violates any order issued by the 
        Secretary under paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil 
        penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation 
        commencing on expiration of the compliance period if no appeal 
        is filed or on the 30th day following the date of the denial of 
        an appeal of such violation. The amount of the penalty imposed 
        per day shall be in proportion to the scale or scope of the 
        project. In determining the amount of a civil penalty, the 
        court shall consider the seriousness of the violation or 
        violations, the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the 
        violation, any history of such violations, any good-faith 
        efforts to comply with the applicable requirements, the 
        economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and such other 
        matters as justice may require.
          ``(5) Criminal penalties.--If any person knowingly and 
        willfully violates any condition or limitation in a permit 
        issued by the Secretary under this section or knowingly and 
        willfully violates an order issued by the Secretary under 
        paragraph (1) and has been notified of the issuance of such 
        order under paragraph (2) and if such violation has resulted in 
        actual degradation of the environment, such person shall be 
        punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than 
        $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more 
        than 3 years, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for a 
        violation committed after a first conviction of such person 
        under this paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine of not more 
        than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more 
        than 6 years, or by both. An action for imposition of a 
        criminal penalty under this paragraph may only be brought by 
        the Attorney General.
  ``(l) State Regulation.--
          ``(1) Submission of proposed state program.--The Governor of 
        any State desiring to administer its own individual or general 
        permit program for some or all of the activities covered by 
        this section within any geographical region within its 
        jurisdiction may submit to the Secretary a description of the 
        program it proposes to establish and administer under State law 
        or under an interstate compact. In addition, such State shall 
        submit a statement from the chief legal officer in the case of 
        the State or interstate agency, that the laws of such State, or 
        the interstate compact, as the case may be, provide adequate 
        authority to carry out the described program.
          ``(2) State authorities required for approval.--Not later 
        than 1 year after the date of the receipt by the Secretary of a 
        program and statement submitted by any State under paragraph 
        (1), the Secretary shall determine whether such State has the 
        following authority with respect to the issuance of permits 
        pursuant to such program:
                  ``(A) to issue permits which--
                          ``(i) apply, and assure compliance with, any 
                        applicable requirements of this section; and
                          ``(ii) can be terminated or modified for 
                        cause, including--
                                  ``(I) violation of any condition of 
                                the permit;
                                  ``(II) obtaining a permit by 
                                misrepresentation, or failure to 
                                disclose fully all relevant facts; or
                                  ``(III) change in any condition that 
                                requires either a temporary or 
                                permanent reduction or elimination of 
                                the permitted activity;
                  ``(B) to issue permits which apply, and ensure 
                compliance with, all applicable requirements of section 
                308 of this Act or to inspect, monitor, enter, and 
                require reports to at least the same extent as required 
                in section 308 of this Act;
                  ``(C) to ensure that the public, and any other State 
                the waters of which may be affected, receive notice of 
                each application for a permit and to provide an 
                opportunity for public hearing before a ruling on each 
                such application;
                  ``(D) to ensure that the Secretary receives notice of 
                each application for a permit and that, prior to any 
                action by the State, both the applicant for the permit 
                and the State have received from the Secretary 
                information with respect to any advance classification 
                applicable to wetlands that are the subject of such 
                application;
                  ``(E) to ensure that any State (other than the 
                permitting State) whose waters may be affected by the 
                issuance of a permit may submit written recommendation 
                to the permitting State with respect to any permit 
                application and, if any part of such written 
                recommendations are not accepted by the permitting 
                State, that the permitting State will notify such 
                affected State (and the Secretary) in writing of its 
                failure to so accept such recommendations together with 
                its reasons for doing so; and
                  ``(F) to abate violations of the permit or the permit 
                program, including civil and criminal penalties and 
                other ways and means of enforcement.
          ``(3) Approval; resubmission.--If, with respect to a State 
        program submitted under paragraph (1) of this section, the 
        Secretary determines that the State--
                  ``(A) has the authority set forth in paragraph (2), 
                the Secretary shall approve the program and so notify 
                such State and suspend the issuance of permits under 
                subsection (b) for activities with respect to which a 
                permit may be issued pursuant to the State program; or
                  ``(B) does not have the authority set forth in 
                paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
                so notify such State and provide a description of the 
                revisions or modifications necessary so that the State 
                may resubmit the program for a determination by the 
                Secretary under this subsection.
          ``(4) Effect of failure of secretary to make timely 
        decision.--If the Secretary fails to make a determination with 
        respect to any program submitted by a State under this 
        subsection within 1 year after the date of receipt of the 
        program, the program shall be treated as being approved 
        pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) and the Secretary shall so notify 
        the State and suspend the issuance of permits under subsection 
        (b) for activities with respect to which a permit may be issued 
        by the State.
          ``(5) Transfer of pending applications for permits.--If the 
        Secretary approves a State permit program under paragraph 
        (3)(A) or (4), the Secretary shall transfer any applications 
        for permits pending before the Secretary for activities with 
        respect to which a permit may be issued pursuant to the State 
        program to the State for appropriate action.
          ``(6) General permits.--Upon notification from a State with a 
        permit program approved under this subsection that such State 
        intends to administer and enforce the terms and conditions of a 
        general permit issued by the Secretary under subsection (e) 
        with respect to activities in the State to which such general 
        permit applies, the Secretary shall suspend the administration 
        and enforcement of such general permit with respect to such 
        activities.
          ``(7) Review by secretary.--Every 5 years after approval of a 
        State administered program under paragraph (3)(A), the 
        Secretary shall review the program to determine whether it is 
        being administered in accordance with this section. If, on the 
        basis of such review, the Secretary finds that a State is not 
        administering its program in accordance with this section or if 
        the Secretary determines based on clear and convincing evidence 
        after a public hearing that a State is not administering its 
        program in accordance with this section and that substantial 
        adverse impacts to wetlands or waters of the United States are 
        imminent, the Secretary shall notify the State and, if 
        appropriate corrective action is not taken within a reasonable 
        time, not to exceed 90 days after the date of the receipt of 
        such notification, the Secretary shall--
                  ``(A) withdraw approval of the program until the 
                Secretary determines such corrective action has been 
                taken; and
                  ``(B) resume the program for the issuance of permits 
                under subsections (b) and (e) for all activities with 
                respect to which the State was issuing permits until 
                such time as the Secretary makes the determination 
                described in paragraph (2) and the State again has an 
                approved program.
  ``(m) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
          ``(1) State authority to control discharges.--Nothing in this 
        section shall preclude or deny the right of any State or 
        interstate agency to control activities in waters within the 
        jurisdiction of such State, including any activity of any 
        Federal agency, and each such agency shall comply with such 
        State or interstate requirements both substantive and 
        procedural to control such activities to the same extent that 
        any person is subject to such requirements. This section shall 
        not be construed as affecting or impairing the authority of the 
        Secretary to maintain navigation.
          ``(2) Availability to public.--A copy of each permit 
        application and each permit issued under this section shall be 
        available to the public. Such permit application or portion 
        thereof shall further be available on request for the purpose 
        of reproduction.
          ``(3) Publication in federal register.--The Secretary shall 
        have published in the Federal Register all memoranda of 
        agreement, regulatory guidance letters, and other guidance 
        documents of general applicability to implementation of this 
        section at the time they are distributed to agency regional or 
        field offices. In addition, the Secretary shall prepare, update 
        on a biennial basis and make available to the public for 
        purchase at cost--
                  ``(A) an indexed publication containing all Federal 
                regulations, general permits, memoranda of agreement, 
                regulatory guidance letters, and other guidance 
                documents relevant to the permitting of activities 
                pursuant to this section; and
                  ``(B) information to enable the general public to 
                understand the delineation of wetlands, the permitting 
                requirements referred to in subsection (e), wetlands 
                restoration and enhancement, wetlands functions, 
                available nonregulatory programs to conserve and 
                restore wetlands, and other matters that the Secretary 
                considers relevant.
          ``(4) Compliance.--
                  ``(A) Compliance with permit.--Compliance with a 
                permit issued pursuant to this section, including any 
                activity carried out pursuant to a general permit 
                issued under this section, shall be deemed in 
                compliance, for purposes of sections 309 and 505, with 
                sections 301, 307, and 403.
                  ``(B) Cranberry production.--Activities associated 
                with expansion, improvement, or modification of 
                existing cranberry production operations shall be 
                deemed in compliance, for purposes of sections 309 and 
                505, with section 301, if--
                          ``(i) the activity does not result in the 
                        modification of more than 10 acres of wetlands 
                        per operator per year and the modified wetlands 
                        (other than where dikes and other necessary 
                        facilities are placed) remain as wetlands or 
                        other waters of the United States; or
                          ``(ii) the activity is required by any State 
                        or Federal water quality program.
          ``(5) Limitation on fees.--Any fee charged in connection with 
        the delineation or classification of wetlands, the submission 
        or processing of an application for a permit authorizing an 
        activity in wetlands or waters of the United States, or any 
        other action taken in compliance with the requirements of this 
        section (other than fines for violations under subsection (k)) 
        shall not exceed the amount in effect for such fee on February 
        15, 1995.
          ``(6) Balanced implementation.--
                  ``(A) In general.--In implementing his or her 
                responsibilities under the regulatory program under 
                this section, the Secretary shall balance the objective 
                of conserving functioning wetlands with the objective 
                of ensuring continued economic growth, providing 
                essential infrastructure, maintaining strong State and 
                local tax bases, and protecting against the 
                diminishment of the use and value of privately owned 
                property.
                  ``(B) Minimization of adverse effects on private 
                property.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
                and the heads of all other Federal agencies shall seek 
                in all actions to minimize the adverse effects of the 
                regulatory program under this section on the use and 
                value of privately owned property.
          ``(7) Procedures for emergencies.--The Secretary shall 
        develop procedures for facilitating actions under this section 
        that are necessary to respond to emergency conditions 
        (including flood events and other emergency situations) which 
        may involve loss of life and property damage. Such procedures 
        shall address circumstances requiring expedited approvals as 
        well as circumstances requiring no formal approval under this 
        section.
          ``(8) Use of property.--For purposes of this section, a use 
        of property is limited by an agency action if a particular 
        legal right to use that property no longer exists because of 
        the action.
          ``(9) Limitation on classification of certain waters.--For 
        purposes of this section, no water of the United States or 
        wetland shall be subject to this section based solely on the 
        fact that migratory birds use or could use such water or 
        wetland.
          ``(10) Transition rules.--
                  ``(A) Permit required.--After the effective date of 
                this section under section 806 of the Comprehensive 
                Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, no 
                permit for any activity in wetlands or waters of the 
                United States may be issued except in accordance with 
                this section. Any application for a permit for such an 
                activity pending under this section on such effective 
                date shall be deemed to be an application for a permit 
                under this section.
                  ``(B) Prior permits.--Any permit for an activity in 
                wetlands or waters of the United States issued under 
                this section prior to the effective date referred to in 
                subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to be a permit under 
                this section and shall continue in force and effect for 
                the term of the permit unless revoked, modified, 
                suspended, or canceled in accordance with this section.
                  ``(C) Reevaluation.--
                          ``(i) Petition.--Any person holding a permit 
                        for an activity in wetlands or water of the 
                        United States on the effective date referred to 
                        in subparagraph (A) may petition, after such 
                        effective date, the Secretary for reevaluation 
                        of any decision made before such effective date 
                        concerning (I) a determination of regulatory 
                        jurisdiction under this section, or (II) any 
                        condition imposed under the permit. Upon 
                        receipt of a petition for reevaluation, the 
                        Secretary shall conduct the reevaluation in 
                        accordance with the provisions of this section.
                          ``(ii) Modification of permit.--If the 
                        Secretary finds that the provisions of this 
                        section apply with respect to activities and 
                        lands which are subject to the permit, the 
                        Secretary shall modify, revoke, suspend, 
                        cancel, or continue the permit as appropriate 
                        in accordance with the provisions of this 
                        section; except that no compensation shall be 
                        awarded under this section to any person as a 
                        result of reevaluation pursuant to this 
                        subparagraph and, if the permit covers 
                        activities in type A wetlands, the permit shall 
                        continue in effect without modification.
                          ``(iii) Procedure.--The reevaluation shall be 
                        carried out in accordance with time limits set 
                        forth in subsection (e)(5) and shall be subject 
                        to administrative appeal under subsection (i).
                  ``(D) Previously denied permits.--No permit shall be 
                issued under this section, no exemption shall be 
                available under subsection (f), and no exception shall 
                be available under subsection (g)(1)(B), for any 
                activity for which a permit has previously been denied 
                by the Secretary on more than one occasion unless such 
                activity--
                          ``(i) has been approved by the affected 
                        State, county, and local government within the 
                        boundaries of which the activity is proposed;
                          ``(ii) in the case of unincorporated land, 
                        has been approved by all local governments 
                        within 1 mile of the proposed activity; and
                          ``(iii) would result in a net improvement to 
                        water quality at the site of such activity.
          ``(11) Definitions.--In this section the following 
        definitions apply:
                  ``(A) Activity in wetlands or waters of the united 
                states.--The term `activity in wetlands or waters of 
                the United States' means--
                          ``(i) the discharge of dredged or fill 
                        material into waters of the United States, 
                        including wetlands at a specific disposal site; 
                        or
                          ``(ii) the draining, channelization, or 
                        excavation of wetlands.
                  ``(B) Agency.--The term `agency' has the meaning 
                given that term in section 551 of title 5, United 
                States Code.
                  ``(C) Agency action.--The term `agency action' has 
                the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, 
                United States Code, but also includes the making of a 
                grant to a public authority conditioned upon an action 
                by the recipient that would constitute a limitation if 
                done directly by the agency.
                  ``(D) Agricultural land.--The term `agricultural 
                land' means cropland, pastureland, native pasture, 
                rangeland, an orchard, a vineyard, nonindustrial forest 
                land, an area that supports a water dependent crop 
                (including cranberries, taro, watercress, or rice), and 
                any other land used to produce or support the 
                production of an annual or perennial crop (including 
                forage or hay), aquaculture product, nursery product, 
                or wetland crop or the production of livestock.
                  ``(E) Conserved wetlands.--The term `conserved 
                wetlands' means wetlands that are located in the 
                National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, 
                National Wilderness System, the Wild and Scenic River 
                System, and other similar Federal conservation systems, 
                combined with wetlands located in comparable types of 
                conservation systems established under State and local 
                authority within State and local land use systems.
                  ``(F) Economic base lands.--The term `economic base 
                lands' means lands conveyed to, selected by, or owned 
                by Alaska Native entities pursuant to the Alaska Native 
                Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 92-203 or the Alaska 
                Native Allotment Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 197), and lands 
                conveyed to, selected by, or owned by the State of 
                Alaska pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act, Public Law 
                85-508.
                  ``(G) Fair market value.--The term `fair market 
                value' means the most probable price at which property 
                would change hands, in a competitive and open market 
                under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, between 
                a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being 
                under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having 
                reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, at the time the 
                agency action occurs.
                  ``(H) Law of a state.--The term `law of a State' 
                includes the law of a political subdivision of a State.
                  ``(I) Mitigation bank.--The term `mitigation bank' 
                means a wetlands restoration, creation, enhancement, or 
                preservation project undertaken by one or more parties, 
                including private and public entities, expressly for 
                the purpose of providing mitigation compensation 
                credits to offset adverse impacts to wetlands or other 
                waters of the United States authorized by the terms of 
                permits allowing activities in such wetlands or waters.
                  ``(J) Navigational dredging.--The term `navigational 
                dredging' means the dredging of ports, waterways, and 
                inland harbors, including berthing areas and local 
                access channels appurtenant to a Federal navigation 
                channel.
                  ``(K) Property.--The term `property' means land and 
                includes the right to use or receive water.
                  ``(L) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the 
                Secretary of the Army.
                  ``(M) State with substantial conserved wetlands 
                areas.--The term `State with substantial conserved 
                wetlands areas' means any State which--
                          ``(i) contains at least 10 areas of wetlands 
                        for each acre of wetlands filled, drained, or 
                        otherwise converted within such State (based 
                        upon wetlands loss statistics reported in the 
                        1990 United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
                        Wetlands Trends report to Congress entitled 
                        `Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 
                        1980's'); or
                          ``(ii) the Secretary of the Army determines 
                        has sufficient conserved wetlands areas to 
                        provided adequate wetlands conservation in such 
                        State, based on the policies set forth in this 
                        Act.
                  ``(N) Wetlands.--The term `wetlands' means those 
                lands that meet the criteria for delineation of lands 
                as wetlands set forth in subsection (g).''.

SEC. 804. DEFINITIONS.

  Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended--
          (1) in paragraph (6)--
                  (A) by striking ``dredged spoil,'';
                  (B) by striking ``or (B)'' and inserting ``(B)''; and
                  (C) by inserting before the period at the end ``; and 
                (C) dredged or fill material''; and
          (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraphs:
  ``(28) The term `wetlands' means lands which have a predominance of 
hydric soils and which are inundated by surface water at a frequency 
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances 
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, 
bogs, and similar areas.
  ``(29) The term `creation of wetlands' means an activity that brings 
a wetland into existence at a site where it did not formerly occur for 
the purpose of compensatory mitigation.
  ``(30) The term `enhancement of wetlands' means any activity that 
increases the value of one or more functions in existing wetlands.
  ``(31) The term `fastlands' means lands located behind legally 
constituted man-made structures or natural formations, such as levees 
constructed and maintained to permit the utilization of such lands for 
commercial, industrial, or residential purposes consistent with local 
land use planning requirements.
  ``(32) The term `wetlands functions' means the roles wetlands serve, 
including flood water storage, flood water conveyance, ground water 
recharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, water quality protection, 
scenic and aesthetic use, food chain support, fisheries, wetlands plant 
habitat, aquatic habitat, and habitat for wetland dependent wildlife.
  ``(33) The term `growing season' means, for each plant hardiness 
zone, the period between the average date of last frost in spring and 
the average date of first frost in autumn.
  ``(34) The term `incidentally created wetlands' means lands that 
exhibit wetlands characteristics sufficient to meet the criteria for 
delineation of wetlands, where one or more of such characteristics is 
the unintended result of human induced alterations of hydrology.
  ``(35) The term `maintenance' when used in reference to wetlands 
means activities undertaken to assure continuation of a wetland or the 
accomplishment of project goals after a restoration or creation project 
has been technically completed, including water level manipulations and 
control of nonnative plant species.
  ``(36) The term `mitigation banking' means wetlands restoration, 
enhancement, preservation or creation for the purpose of providing 
compensation for wetland degradation or loss.
  ``(37) The term `normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture and 
ranching activities' means normal practices identified as such by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Cooperative 
Extension Service for each State and the land grant university system 
and agricultural colleges of the State, taking into account existing 
practices and such other practices as may be identified in consultation 
with the affected industry or community.
  ``(38) The term `prior converted cropland' means any agricultural 
land that was manipulated (by drainage or other physical alteration to 
remove excess water from the land) or used for the production of any 
annual or perennial agricultural crop (including forage or hay), 
aquacultural product, nursery product or wetlands crop, or the 
production of livestock before December 23, 1985.
  ``(39) The term `restoration' in reference to wetlands means an 
activity undertaken to return a wetland from a disturbed or altered 
condition with lesser acreage or fewer functions to a previous 
condition with greater wetlands acreage or functions.
  ``(40) The term `temporary impact' means the disturbance or 
alteration of wetlands caused by activities under circumstances in 
which, within 3 years following the commencement of such activities, 
such wetlands--
          ``(A) are returned to the conditions in existence prior to 
        the commencement of such activity; or
          ``(B) display conditions sufficient to ensure, that without 
        further human action, such wetlands will return to the 
        conditions in existence prior to the commencement of such 
        activity.
  ``(41) The term `airport hazard' has the meaning such term has under 
section 47102 of title 49, United States Code.''.

SEC. 805. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Violation.--Section 301(a) (33 U.S.C. 1311(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``402, and 404'' and inserting ``and 402''; 
        and
          (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Except as in 
        compliance with this section and section 404, the undertaking 
        of any activity in wetlands or waters of the United States 
        shall be unlawful.''.
  (b) Federal Enforcement.--Section 309 (33 U.S.C. 1319) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``or 404'';
          (2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``or in a permit issued 
        under section 404 of this Act by a State'';
          (3) in each of subsections (c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(A) by 
        striking ``or in a permit'' and all that follows through 
        ``State;'' and inserting a semicolon;
          (4) in subsection (c)(3)(A) by striking ``or in a permit'' 
        and all that follows through ``State, and'' and inserting 
        ``and'';
          (5) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
          ``(8) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who 
        violates section 301 with respect to an activity in wetlands or 
        waters of the United States for which a permit is required 
        under section 404 shall not be subject to punishment under this 
        subsection but shall be subject to punishment under section 
        404(k)(5).'';
          (6) in subsection (d) by striking ``, or in a permit issued 
        under section 404 of this Act by a State,'';
          (7) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following: 
        ``Any person who violates section 301 with respect to an 
        activity in wetlands or waters of the United States for which a 
        permit is required under section 404 shall not be subject to a 
        civil penalty under this subsection but shall be subject to a 
        civil penalty under section 404(k)(4).'';
          (8) in subsection (g)(1)--
                  (A) by striking ``--'' and all that follows through 
                ``(A)'';
                  (B) by striking ``or in a permit issued under section 
                404 by a State, or''; and
                  (C) by striking ``(B)'' and all that follows through 
                ``as the case may be,'' and inserting ``the 
                Administrator'';
          (9) by adding at the end of subsection (g) the following:
          ``(12) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who 
        violates section 301 with respect to an activity in wetlands or 
        waters of the United States for which a permit is required 
        under section 404 shall not be subject to assessment of a civil 
        penalty under this subsection but shall be subject to 
        assessment of a civil penalty under section 404(k)(4).'';
          (10) by striking ``or Secretary'', ``or the Secretary'', ``or 
        the Secretary, as the case may be,'', ``or Secretary's'', and 
        ``and the Secretary'' each place they appear; and
          (11) in subsection (g)(9)(B) by inserting a comma after 
        ``Administrator''.

SEC. 806. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  This title, including the amendments made by this title, shall take 
effect on the 90th day following the date of the enactment of this Act.

                    TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

SEC. 901. REFERENCES TO ACT.

  Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this title an 
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to 
be made to a section or other provision of the Marine Protection, 
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).

SEC. 902. OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS.

  (a) Issuance of Permits.--Section 102 (33 U.S.C. 1412) is amended--
          (1) in the section heading by striking ``environmental 
        protection agency''; and
          (2) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it 
                appears and inserting ``Secretary'';
                  (B) by striking paragraph (G) and redesignating 
                paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (H), and (I) 
                as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively;
                  (C) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by 
                redesignating subparagraphs (i) through (iii) as 
                subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively; and
                  (D) by striking the first and second sentences 
                following the indented paragraphs.
  (b) Categories of Permits.--Section 102(b) (33 U.S.C. 1412(b)) is 
amended by striking ``Administrator'' and inserting ``Secretary''.
  (c) Designation of Sites.--Section 102(c) (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``Secretary''; and
          (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``Administrator''.
  (d) Special Rules.--Sections 102(d) and 102(e) (33 U.S.C. 1412(d) and 
1412(e)) are amended by striking ``Administrator'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``Secretary''.

SEC. 903. DREDGED MATERIAL PERMITS.

  (a) Disposal Sites.--Section 103 (33 U.S.C. 1413) is amended--
          (1) in the section heading by striking ``corps of engineers'' 
        and inserting ``dredged material''; and
          (2) in subsection (b)--
                  (A) by striking ``by the Administrator'' each place 
                it appears;
                  (B) by striking ``, with the concurrence of the 
                Administrator,''; and
                  (C) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Administrator'' 
                and inserting ``Secretary''.
  (b) Consultation With the Administrator.--Section 103(c) (33 U.S.C. 
1413(c) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(c) Consultation With the Administrator.--Prior to issuing a permit 
to any person under this section, the Secretary shall first consult 
with the Administrator.''.
  (c) Waivers.--Section 103(d) (33 U.S.C. 1413(d)) is amended by 
striking ``request a waiver'' and all that follows through the period 
at the end and inserting ``grant a waiver.''.

SEC. 904. PERMIT CONDITIONS.

  Section 104 (33 U.S.C. 1414) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``Administrator or the Secretary, as the case 
        may be,'' each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary'';
          (2) in subsection (a) by inserting a comma before ``after 
        consultation'';
          (3) in subsection (h)--
                  (A) by striking ``Administrator of the Environmental 
                Protection Agency'' and inserting ``Secretary''; and
                  (B) in the last sentence by striking ``Administrator 
                determines'' and inserting ``Secretary determines''; 
                and
          (4) in subsection (i)--
                  (A) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it 
                appears and inserting ``Secretary'';
                  (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Merchant Marine 
                and Fisheries'' and inserting ``Transportation and 
                Infrastructure''; and
                  (C) in paragraph (4)(D) by striking ``of the 
                Environmental Protection Agency''.

SEC. 905. SPECIAL PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DUMPING SITES.

  Section 104A (33 U.S.C. 1414a) is amended by striking 
``Administrator'' each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary''.

SEC. 906. REFERENCES TO ADMINISTRATOR.

  With respect to any function transferred from the Administrator to 
the Secretary of the Army by an amendment made by this title and 
exercised after the effective date of such transfer, reference in any 
Federal law to the Administrator shall be considered to refer to the 
Secretary of the Army.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of the bill is to reauthorize and amend the 
Clean Water Act to provide a flexible, scientifically sound, 
and cost-effective basis on which to maintain and continue 
improvements in water quality.

                          Need for Legislation

    The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(referred to as the Clean Water Act, CWA, or Act) is to restore 
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 
of the nation's waters. The Act was last amended 
comprehensively in 1987 and most of its authorizations of 
appropriations expired in 1991. Funding has been provided 
through the annual appropriations process.
    The Clean Water Act is a program that requires further 
direction from Congress. In general, it has worked well to 
provide the nation with clean, healthy water through a 
partnership among Federal, State and local governments and 
industry. However, much of the improvements in water quality 
achieved to date have been through the implementation of ``end-
of-pipe'' controls on industrial and municipal point source 
dischargers. Additional regulation of these point sources is 
increasingly costly and achieves increasingly smaller marginal 
benefits.
    Moreover, a majority of the remaining water quality 
problems in rivers, streams and lakes are caused by ``wet 
weather flows,'' e.g., agricultural and urban runoff, and 
municipal and industrial storm sewer discharges. The urban 
streets, rural fields, and other sources that create this 
runoff problem are not amenable to traditional ``end-of-pipe,'' 
``command-and-control'' regulatory approaches. Accordingly, the 
current Act has not been able to effectively address the 
problems associated with such wet weather flows. Attempts to 
impose command-and-control approaches on wet weather flows have 
led to regulations or permits that require unattainable results 
or results that are attainable only at enormous costs, much of 
which will be borne by cities and towns.
    During the seven days of hearings in February and March 
1995, and at hearings held in the 103d Congress, the Committee 
heard extensive testimony about specific areas that need to be 
addressed through comprehensive Clean Water Act reauthorization 
legislation, including the need to (1) provide relief from 
unfunded mandates, (2) develop better approaches to control of 
pollution from nonpoint and stormwater runoff and other wet 
weather flows, (3) provide additional flexibility and an 
increased State and local role in implementation of the Act, 
(4) provide financial and regulatory relief to small 
communities, (5) incorporate risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis into the standard setting process, (6) ensure that 
standards are based on sound science, and (7) comprehensively 
reform the regulatory process for permitting activities that 
take place in wetlands.

                           Unfunded Mandates

    The Committee must support efforts to provide State and 
local governments relief from the impacts of unfunded mandates. 
On March 23, 1995, President Clinton signed into law the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. However, this Act does 
not address the impacts of unfunded mandates in existing law. 
During the debate on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the 
Clean Water Act was cited as placing the most costly unfunded 
mandates on local governmental entities.
    The National Association of Counties estimates that the 
Clean Water Act resulted in unfunded mandates costing counties 
$1.2 billion in 1993, and will result in unfunded mandates 
costing $6.5 billion from 1994 to 1998. In a 1993 survey on the 
impact of unfunded federal mandates on America's counties, 
conducted by Price Waterhouse, counties particularly cited the 
Clean Water Act's inflexible procedures and ``cookie-cutter'' 
approach, regardless of local conditions, as a reason for the 
size of the Clean Water Act's unfunded mandates. Counties also 
cited (1) the need to build and operate ``hugely expensive 
wastewater treatment plants'' to meet secondary treatment 
requirements, (2) impracticable stormwater regulations, (3) 
``sludge regulations that require wastewater treatment plant 
biosolids to be treated, then limits their disposal'' and (4) 
``wetlands regulations that prohibit the cleaning of some 
drainage ditches without a permit from the Corps of 
Engineers,'' as reasons for the expense and burden imposed by 
the Clean Water Act.
    The United States Conference of Mayors estimates that the 
Clean Water Act resulted in unfunded mandates costing cities 
$3.6 billion in 1993 and will result in unfunded mandates 
costing $29.3 billion from 1994 to 1998. Sadly and ironically, 
in response to a question in a 1993 survey conducted by Price 
Waterhouse on the impact of all Federal unfunded mandates on 
United States cities that asked what municipal projects had 
been delayed or forgone due to the need to divert resources to 
meet costly federal mandates, many cities responded that they 
were unable to make needed improvements in their sewer system 
infrastructure. By failing to maintain sewer systems, these 
communities are likely to face even more expensive costs 
associated with correcting infiltration or overflow problems 
associated with aging sewer systems. In addition, delaying or 
forgoing projects to extend sewer systems to households now 
serviced by septic tanks could result in impairment of water 
quality associated with failing septic tanks. Accordingly, 
Federal mandates are forcing communities to make funding 
choices that can be detrimental to the environment.
    The bill addresses unfunded mandates by providing increased 
funding to meet Clean Water Act mandates an by providing 
regulatory relief by increasing both the flexibility and cost-
effectiveness of the Act. Specifically, the bill authorizes 
$2.5 billion a year from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 
2000 for capitalization grants to States for the State 
Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). The bill also authorizes $500 
million per year for a SRF dedicated to addressing nonpoint 
sources of pollution. The bill will double (to $150 million a 
year) previously authorized levels for grants to States for 
administering and enforcing water pollution control programs. 
The bill establishes a $150 million a year grant fund for water 
infrastructure improvements for small communities and a $150 
million a year grant fund for coastal localities, contingent on 
full funding of the SRF.

                       Nonpoint Source Discharges

    Nonpoint source discharges include runoff from rural 
fields, urban streets, and other areas. During consideration of 
H.R. 961, the Committee heard testimony stating that it is not 
feasible to collect and treat this runoff prior to discharge. 
Instead, the most effective method of control is the prevention 
of pollution in runoff through management practices and 
measures. However, causes and the nature of runoff are 
extremely site-specific. Accordingly, a top-down approach for 
the development and implementation of management practices and 
measures is not appropriate.
    The Committee also heard testimony regarding the 
controversy and criticism generated by section 6217 of the 
Coastal Zone Management Program. Enacted as part of the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, section 6217 creates a 
separate coastal nonpoint source management program 
administered by both the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA). This separate program addresses the same 
nonpoint source runoff problem that is addressed under section 
319 of the Act. As a result, landowners in coastal areas are 
subject to two different regulatory programs implemented by as 
many as three different regulatory offices, all to address the 
same runoff. In addition, the Coastal States Organization has 
criticized the section 6217 coastal nonpoint source program as 
an inflexible program with unrealistic time frames that does 
not allow States to target resources to impaired waters. To 
eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, ensure that landowners are 
not subject to conflicting regulatory requirements, and to 
provide States with flexibility to target resources, the bill 
repeals section 6217 and folds it into the section 319 nonpoint 
source program by requiring identification of impaired or 
threatened coastal areas within that program.
    The bill strengthens the existing section 319 nonpoint 
source program by authorizing $1 billion over five years for 
State program grants and establishing a new State revolving 
loan fund that is dedicated to control of nonpoint sources and 
is capitalized at $2.5 billion over five years.
    The bill requires States to develop and implement nonpoint 
source management programs that must include goals and 
milestones for achieving water quality standards as soon as 
practicable but no later than 15 years from the date of program 
approval. If a State does not develop an approvable program, 
EPA must develop and implement a program for the State.
    The bill requires EPA to develop guidance on model 
management practices and measures. The Committee expects, 
however, that States will work with conservation districts and 
other local groups to tailor management measures to best 
address specific situations and to rely first on voluntary 
measures. States also have the authority to require enforceable 
measures for the control of nonpoint source pollution. However, 
the bill expresses the belief that nonpoint source programs 
should be built upon a foundation of voluntary initiatives that 
represent the approach most likely to succeed in achieving the 
objectives of the Act.

                               Stormwater

    The current stormwater permitting program at section 402(p) 
of the Act was added in 1987. This section required industrial 
facilities and municipalities with populations over 250,000 to 
obtain permits for stormwater discharges by February 4, 1991, 
and municipalities with populations over 100,000 to obtain 
permits by February 4, 1993 (collectively, Phase I 
dischargers). However, EPA did not promulgate its stormwater 
permit regulations until November 1990. EPA administratively 
extended the deadline by which such dischargers were to have 
filed individual permit applications or obtained coverage under 
a general permit to October 1, 1992 (which extension was 
subsequently approved by Congress).
    The entire permit application process has been very complex 
and confusing for both regulators and the regulated community. 
Not knowing how to regulate stormwater, EPA required extensive 
data collection and information in permit applications. As a 
result, according to the February 9, 1995, testimony of Mr. 
Stephen John, on behalf of the National League of Cities, 
before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the average 
cost to a city of a Phase I stormwater permit application is 
$625,000. According to the Price Waterhouse survey of the 
impact of federal unfunded mandates on cities, Tulsa, 
Oklahoma's stormwater permit application cost $1.1 million. As 
of May 1994, only 24 municipal stormwater permits had actually 
been issued.
    Approximately 60,000 industrial sources, at EPA's urging, 
opted to apply for a stormwater permit under EPA's group permit 
application process. These entities spent approximately $150 
million to collect the data necessary to put those applications 
together. However, EPA then decided not to issue a group 
application; segregated 700 groups into 29 sectors in a manner 
that combined groups with very different stormwater discharges; 
and has proposed (but has not yet issued) 29 multi-sector 
permits.
    The purpose and requirements of stormwater discharge 
permits remain unclear. The statute currently requires permits 
for industrial discharges to meet all applicable requirements 
of sections 402 and 301. Permits for municipal stormwater 
discharges are required to reduce the discharge of pollutants 
to the maximum extent practicable. Compliance with these 
requirements is to be achieved no later than three years from 
the date a permit is issued.
    To meet the statutory deadlines, most industrial facilities 
sought coverage under State general stormwater permits, which 
require stormwater pollution prevention planning. Some 
individual permits do have numerical effluent limitations. 
Similarly, some municipal permits require management practices 
and measures to reduce pollution, but others include numerical 
effluent limitations, which are currently unachievable.
    The EPA's own estimate of costs to municipalities to comply 
with the current stormwater permitting requirements of the 
Clean Water Act, is between $3.4 billion and $5.3 billion 
annually. If current law is interpreted, as it is by some 
States, to require stormwater discharges to meet numerical 
limits based on fishable, swimmable water quality standards, 
the National League of Cities estimates the cost of controls 
necessary to meet those limits to be over $1 trillion.
    Through the exercise of data collection and the confusion 
of permitting, both regulators and the regulated community 
learned that a bureaucratic permitting framework, federally 
mandated controls, and end-of-pipe limitations are not 
appropriate for control of stormwater runoff. Accordingly, the 
Phase I permitting program has resulted in extraordinary 
expenditures of time and resources, with minimal environmental 
benefit beyond that achieved through pollution prevention 
plans.
    Since October 1, 1994, an additional 7 million facilities 
and thousands of communities (Phase II dischargers) have been 
potentially subject to this broken program. Accordingly, rapid 
legislative action is needed to fix the stormwater management 
program.
    As expressed by participants in meetings held on the 
stormwater program by the Rensselaerville Institute in 1992 and 
1993, the most appropriate fix is one which provides for 
flexible, site-specific, pollution prevention measures, not 
nationally mandated controls:

          States feel that they have more knowledge of the 
        industrial risks within their boundaries and know what 
        is needed to bring those risks into compliance. A 
        number of focus groups cited the uselessness of having 
        EPA develop requirements for any given industry when it 
        did not understand specific industries.
          [W]orking in partnership with States and permittees 
        rather than through a ``command and control'' 
        relationship could get the program in place more 
        quickly and maximize its effectiveness.

U.S. EPA, Report on the EPA Storm Water Management Program, Vol 
1, at 18 (Oct. 1992) (EPA830-R-92-001).

          Much wisdom about storm water controls are not 
        readily generalizable.
          Pollution prevention should be emphasized.
          EPA needs to allow State and local flexibility to 
        address priorities as they have identified them.

U.S. EPA, Office of Water, EPA Group Involvement Project, at 
11-12 (Rensselaerville Institute) (Sept. 1993).
    At the Rensselaerville Institute meetings, two different 
structures for stormwater programs were discussed: (1) A 
traditional national program where EPA provides mandates and 
the States and localities attempt to meet them, and (2) a 
decentralized program which identifies a national performance 
target and allows States to develop programs to meet that 
target.
    The bill adopts the latter approach by replacing the 
current section 402(p) permitting program with new section 322 
State stormwater management programs. The bill requires States 
to develop stormwater management programs within four years and 
to meet the goal of attainment of water quality standards for 
stormwater within 15 years of program approval. To meet that 
goal, States have the flexibility to target receiving waters 
and sources of stormwater discharges. The premise of the 
program is that pollution prevention measures are most likely 
to result in attainment of the goal of achieving water quality 
standards. Accordingly, State controls begin with enforceable 
pollution prevention plans and may proceed to general and site-
specific permits as determined to be necessary by the State.
    Recently, EPA proposed a ``fix'' to its stormwater permit 
program, which would delay permit applications for Phase II 
dischargers until August 2, 2001, and adjust the requirements 
for Phase II dischargers through a negotiated rulemaking. 60 
Fed. Reg. 17950 (Apr. 7, 1995). Under its proposal, EPA may 
target particular Phase II sources for permit applications 
sooner than 2001. This proposal leaves in place the current 
stormwater permitting program both for Phase I sources and for 
those Phase II sources that EPA targets for early permits.
    In contrast, the bill reforms the stormwater program for 
both Phase I and Phase II sources and will bring more sources 
under control in a shorter time frame. In addition, by 
providing a hierarchy of control measures, the bill creates an 
incentive for facilities to achieve improvements as soon as 
possible, to avoid a State determination that additional 
controls on the facility are necessary. Accordingly, the 
approach taken by the bill is both more cost-effective and 
better for the environment than either current law or EPA's 
proposal.
    EPA's ``fix'' was negotiated with the Natural Resources 
Defense Counsel (NRDC), which threatened to sue EPA for its 
failure to impose its stormwater permit program on the 7 
million facilities that have been potentially subject to the 
stormwater permit program since October 1, 1994. EPA did not 
consult various affected parties until after it had reached its 
agreements with NRDC. Those affected parties strongly oppose 
EPA's ``fix.''
    On February 16, 1995, the National Association of Counties, 
the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of 
Mayors, and the National Association of Flood and Stormwater 
Management Agencies wrote to EPA Assistant Administrator for 
Water, Robert Perciasepe, to express their concerns over EPA's 
proposal:

          On behalf of the National Association of Counties, 
        the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of 
        Mayors, and the National Association of Flood and 
        Stormwater Management Agencies, we are writing to 
        express our very serious concerns about the Agency's 
        proposed interim final rule on stormwater.
          * * * * * * *
          Third, we have significant problems with the process 
        EPA is proposing. We cannot endorse a process that does 
        not, and cannot resolve our major problem with the 
        stormwater management program--the requirement to meet 
        numerical effluent limits. As EPA knows, and as NRDC 
        has publicly admitted, there are no strategies, 
        technologies or methods known or available that will 
        assure the attainment of water quality standards in 
        stormwater runoff. Absent the ability to address this 
        pivotal issue, we consider it a disservice to all of 
        our members to engage in a process that can only result 
        in cosmetic changes with no ability to bring cost 
        effectiveness and ``common sense'' to the program. We 
        would be irresponsible to accept a process that has the 
        potential to subject our members to a burdensome and 
        costly mandate determined by those who have neither the 
        responsibility for implementing nor financing such a 
        mandate.
          * * * * * * *
          Rather than proposing to broaden the program, EPA 
        should be requesting funding to determine whether the 
        objectives of the stormwater program are achievable and 
        if so how and at what cost relative to the benefits. 
        EPA should be asking Congress for immediate action to 
        delay further expansion of the program to additional 
        communities.

The new State stormwater management program created by section 
322 of the bill addresses the concerns of these public sector 
groups.

                  Flexibility and Increased State Role

    Many parties testified on the need to increase State and 
local flexibility to prevent the Act from imposing ``one-size-
fits-all'' standards and requirements that do not reflect 
regional and local differences. Flexibility is necessary to 
achieve the greatest environmental benefits from scarce 
resources.
    State organizations also have communicated to the Committee 
the need to give States increased flexibility and a greater 
role in implementing the Act to allow States to address real 
risks in a more cost-effective manner.
    In its recent report to Congress on its review of EPA's 
role in setting the nation's environmental priorities the 
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) endorsed both 
increased flexibility and an increased State role in program 
implementation. In particular, the NAPA report recommended that 
both EPA and Congress give more responsibility and 
decisionmaking authority to States and localities.
    The bill responds to this concern in a variety of ways. It 
allows States to take into account the unique nature of streams 
in arid areas when establishing water quality standards. This 
flexibility addresses concerns raised by cities in Arizona and 
other arid areas that are faced with illogical requirements to 
meet water quality standards developed for perennial streams, 
or to monitor for nonexistent pollutants in dry stream beds to 
develop a stormwater permit application.
    The bill allows EPA or States to modify technology-based 
permit requirements to allow dischargers to take pollution 
prevention measures or to engage in pollution trading, provided 
there is reduction in overall discharges and a net 
environmental benefit. This approach is endorsed in the recent 
NAPA report. NAPA recommends that EPA be given the authority to 
allow facilities to go ``beyond compliance'' to implement 
multi-media pollution control measures that depart from 
technology standards. NAPA predicts that the benefits of such 
flexibility in terms of risk reduction and efficiency would be 
substantial.
    The bill also provides relief from in the application of 
secondary treatment requirements for municipal wastewater 
treatment facilities that discharge from ocean outfalls. This 
flexibility addresses concerns expressed by communities faced 
with the prospect of spending billions of dollars for secondary 
treatment that will provide questionable added environmental 
benefit.
    The bill allows municipal treatment works to impose local 
pretreatment limits on facilities that introduce pollutants 
into the treatment works, in lieu of national categorical 
pretreatment standards, provided the treatment works 
demonstrates that it will remain in compliance with its 
effluent limits, sludge quality standards, air emissions 
limits, and all other applicable State requirements. Thus, the 
bill provides relief from otherwise redundant treatment that 
may occur if a facility must install equipment to meet national 
categorical pretreatment standards before discharging to a POTW 
that already has established local pretreatment limits to 
prevent pass-through of toxics and already adequately treats 
the indirect discharger's wastes.
    The nonpoint source and stormwater programs discussed above 
also maximize State flexibility to fashion their State programs 
to meet the national goal of attainment of water quality 
standards.

                           Small Communities

    The impacts of Clean Water Act mandates fall particularly 
hard on small communities. Several provisions of the bill 
relating to funding, technical assistance, and regulatory 
relief address this concern.
    Relating to funding, the bill provides up to $250,000,000 
in grants for wastewater treatment plants at hardship coastal 
communities and communities with a population of 75,000 or 
fewer. The bill requires EPA to issue guidance on simplified 
procedures for communities with populations of 20,000 or fewer 
to obtain assistance from the SRF. Disadvantaged communities 
are eligible for extended repayment schedules of up to 40 years 
and negative interest rates as low as negative 2% on SRF loans. 
States may use up to 2% of SRF grants for technical assistance 
to small communities.
    The bill establishes a technical assistance ``circuit 
rider'' program for rural and small publicly owned treatment 
works (POTWs) and authorizes $10,000,000 for this program.
    The bill provides regulatory relief by allowing EPA or a 
State to modify secondary treatment requirements for POTWs 
serving communities with a population of 20,000 or fewer if the 
effluent is from domestic users and the treatment works has an 
alternative treatment system that is equivalent to secondary 
treatment or that provides an adequate level of protection. 
With this amendment, the Committee intends to allow small 
communities to utilize alternative treatment systems such as 
constructed wetlands, recirculating sand filters, oxidation 
lagoons, and other natural land-based and water-based systems 
to meet the goals of secondary treatment. Again, the NAPA 
report supports this type of flexibility by recommending that 
if a city or county can demonstrate that it can attain or 
exceed required levels of environmental quality or risk 
reduction by non-traditional means, a State should be able to 
approve a plan that achieves this and waive the regulatory 
requirements that make less sense for the community.
    In addition, the provisions of the bill that (1) codify 
EPA's Combined Sewer Overflow Policy to allow permits and 
schedules for compliance with water quality standards from such 
discharges to be modified to allow for long-term control 
strategies of up to 15 years, and, (2) require EPA to develop a 
control policy for sanitary overflows (SSOs), both provide 
interim relief that is particularly important for small 
communities. Finally, the stormwater provisions of the bill 
reform the stormwater program so stormwater discharges from 
communities with populations under 100,000 will be regulated 
under new State Stormwater Management Programs rather than the 
current stormwater permitting program. By repealing section 
402(p), the bill ensures that small communities are no longer 
subject to enforcement actions and citizen suits for failure to 
have a stormwater discharge permit.

               Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis

    In the last twenty-five years, the cost to our citizens of 
complying with environmental regulation has risen dramatically. 
Today, it is estimated that each American household, on 
average, expends $1,500 each year for environmental protection. 
These costs are expected to rise. Under existing legislative 
requirements, society's pollution control costs are expected to 
equal federal defense spending by the year 2000 (see Figure 1). 
Approximately a third of these costs (the most recent EPA 
estimate is $64 billion) are attributable to Clean Water Act 
requirements.


    With resources of this magnitude being obligated to protect 
our nation's water quality it is extremely important that 
policy makers (1) have information that is based on sound 
scientific analyses of potential risks to public health and the 
environment, and (2) weigh the costs of proposed Clean Water 
Act regulations against their benefits before they are 
promulgated. Unfortunately, the current Clean Water Act not 
only does not encourage these activities but, in some cases, it 
precludes them. As Senator Daniel P. Moynihan has stated, 
``Truth be told, I suspect that environmental decisions have 
been based more on feelings than on facts.''
    On February 28, 1995, by a vote of 286 to 141, the House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-
Benefit Act of 1995, placing general requirements on regulatory 
agencies to perform risk assessments and benefit-cost analyses 
before promulgating significant regulations. The Committee 
endorses the application of H.R. 1022 requirements to new Clean 
Water Act regulations and has adopted, in sections 323 and 324 
of this bill, complementary provisions that tailor H.R. 1022 
requirements to Clean Water Act programs. The Committee 
believes these provisions will promote sound regulatory 
decisions and achieve a more rational and coherent allocation 
of society's limited resources.

                             Sound Science

    The Committee also heard repeatedly of the need to ensure 
that Clean Water Act standards and requirements are based on 
sound scientific evidence and principles. One example that was 
brought to the Committee's attention repeatedly is the need to 
update EPA's criteria documents that are used as the basis for 
setting State water quality standards.
    Many EPA criteria, particularly those for metals, are based 
on outdated scientific assumptions. To address this concern, 
the bill requires EPA to update all of its water quality 
criteria within 5 years as necessary to certify that the 
criteria are based on the latest and best scientific knowledge, 
beginning with metals, which must be updated within one year.

                                Wetlands

    Section 404 of the Clean Water Act was originally designed 
to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into 
``navigable waters'' at specified disposal sites. However, over 
time (and without significant change in statutory authority) 
the scope of the section 404 program, especially in terms of 
the types of activities regulated and the geographical extent 
of jurisdiction, expanded well beyond the original 
congressional intent. As a result of a myriad of judicial 
interpretations and administrative decisions, the program has 
become one of the most complex, controversial and burdensome 
aspects of the Clean Water Act. As a result, the program 
suffers from lack of public understanding, widespread 
opposition, and wide-ranging calls for reform.
    At the same time, the nation has come to better understand 
and appreciate the benefits to the aquatic environment that 
could be achieved under section 404, especially through 
preservation of truly valuable wetlands functions. 
Unfortunately, the program as it now exists often results in 
extraordinary delays and costs; a disregard of private property 
rights; overzealous and inconsistent application by the 
government; a lack of public awareness of and input to changing 
government policies; and bickering among the Federal agencies 
running the program.
    Title VIII of the bill will assure that the nation's truly 
valuable aquatic resources are preserved and that regulatory 
burdens on activities that are recurring in nature and have 
minor impacts will be reduced or eliminated. Reforms include 
the following measures.
    Landowners who have their property devalued by regulatory 
actions will be compensated (paid from the regulatory agencies' 
budgets), consistent with H.R. 925, passed by the House of 
Representatives on March 3, 1995.
    The fact that not all wetlands are of equal value will be 
taken into consideration in making regulatory decisions. A high 
degree of protection will be given to the most valuable 
wetlands, but low-value wetlands will not be subject to Federal 
permits. In fact, the type of activities occurring in wetlands 
that are regulated will actually be broadened to assure that 
valuable wetland resources are afforded a high degree of 
protection.
    States will have expanded opportunities and incentives to 
assume all or part of the program and State and local resource 
management programs will be given greater weight.
    Procedural reforms, agency disclosure requirements, and 
administrative appeals will streamline the process, assure 
better public understanding and opportunity for input, and 
assure fairness to applicants.
    Existing provisions intended to minimize or exempt minor, 
routine activities will be updated and expanded.
    Management of the program will be concentrated in a single 
agency for increased consistency, expedited reviews, and 
accountability.

                         Navigational Dredging

    As with wetlands regulation, the regulatory process for 
navigational dredging has degraded to the point that such work 
is delayed for years, often while agencies argue over details 
having little significance.
    Title IX of the bill modifies the regulatory provisions of 
the Ocean Dumping Act to assign responsibility for implementing 
those provisions to the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
the Chief of Engineers, consistent with the approach taken in 
Title VIII. Procedures for navigational dredging will be 
streamlined while preserving existing public review and 
environmental safeguards.

  Discussion of the Committee Bill (H.R. 961) and Section-by-Section 
                                Analysis

                 title i--research and related programs

Section 101. National goals and policies

    Section 101 of the bill identifies additional national 
goals and policies of the Clean Water Act. These additional 
goals and policies embody many of the general themes throughout 
H.R. 961: devolution and deference to State and local 
governments, increased emphasis on risk-based and market-based 
approaches, and more resources toward nonpoint and other ``wet 
weather flow'' issues.
    Subsection (a) adds nonpoint source pollution goals and 
policies by stating that it is the national policy that 
programs, including public and private sector programs using 
economic incentives, for the control of nonpoint sources of 
pollution, including stormwater, be developed and implemented 
in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of the Act 
to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint 
sources of pollution.
    In endorsing economic incentives and voluntary initiatives 
as viable options to control nonpoint sources, the Committee 
was particularly mindful of recommendations soon to be formally 
announced by the National Forum on Nonpoint Source Pollution. 
Convened over a year ago by the Conservation Fund and the 
National Geographical Society, the Forum includes prominent 
environmentalists and EPA senior management as well as 
Governors with leadership roles in the National Governors 
Association, agribusiness executives, and farmers. The Forum, 
recognizing the limited applicability of ``command-and-
control'' regulations to diffuse sources of contaminated 
runoff, recommends that economic incentives, voluntary 
initiatives and education play leading roles in a revitalized 
national effort to curb excessive nonpoint source pollution.
    A few examples from the Forum's recommendations illustrate 
the types of economic or market ``incentives'' that could be 
employed to reduce nonpoint source pollution. Incentives can be 
defined to include actions or policies which either encourage 
and reward, or discourage and penalize, certain behavior but 
which, unlike regulations, do not legally force or prohibit it. 
One such Forum-proposed market incentive is the nonpoint 
source-oriented water quality monitoring which section 102 of 
the bill calls for EPA and cooperating agencies to conduct. 
Other examples include preferential lending rates by financial 
institutions, preferential premiums by insurance carriers, and 
preferential property tax rates by local governments reserved 
for agricultural or other nonpoint enterprises that implement 
``best management practices'' to minimize nonpoint pollution. 
Another example is the pollution reduction ``trading'' 
agreement between a point and nonpoint source authorized in 
section 302 of the bill.
    Subsection (b) addresses the respective roles of State, 
Tribal, and local governments in implementing the statute by 
stating that it is the national policy to recognize, support 
and enhance the role of the State, Tribal and local governments 
in carrying out the purposes of the Act. Generally, most of the 
success of the Clean Water Act depends on a ``bottom-up'' 
rather than ``top-down'' approach to water pollution control.
    Subsection (c) States that it is the national policy to 
encourage reclamation and beneficial reuse of wastewater and 
biosolids. H.R. 961, like previous reauthorization bills, 
recognizes the importance of and need for wastewater 
reclamation and beneficial reuse. The beneficial recycling of 
``biosolids'' (a new term used in the bill and to be included 
in amended section 405 of the Act) is an environmentally and 
scientifically sound practice that, among other things, can 
conserve water and improve soil fertility.
    Subsection (d) states that it is the national policy to 
encourage water use efficiency. H.R. 961, like the existing 
Clean Water Act, recognizes that water use efficiency and water 
conservation can be integrally related to water quality. The 
Committee has received an abundance of testimony over the years 
from wastewater treatment officials, water quality regulators, 
environmental organizations, and others on this issue. H.R. 961 
encourages, but does not require, water use efficiency.
    Subsection (e) states that it is the national policy that 
the development and implementation of water quality protection 
programs pursuant to this Act be based on scientifically 
objective and unbiased information concerning the nature and 
magnitude of risk and maximize net benefits to society in order 
to promote sound regulatory decisions and promote the rational 
and coherent allocation of society's limited resources. 
Sections 323 and 324 of the bill implement this policy by 
requiring EPA to perform risk assessments and to certify that 
regulations, other than water quality standards and criteria, 
maximize net benefits. Recognizing that the overall objective 
of the statute is the restoration and maintenance of the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our nation's 
waters, the bill only requires that the costs of EPA developed 
water quality standards be reasonably related to the benefits 
(including, of course, achieving the objective of the statute). 
It does not require that costs be taken into account in 
establishing water quality criteria. It also does not require 
that the quantified benefits exceed the quantified costs.

Section 102. Research, investigations, training, and information

    National Programs. Section 102(a) provides that national 
programs created for the prevention, reduction and elimination 
of pollution, in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, 
and local agencies, are to conduct, promote, and encourage 
monitoring and measurement of water quality. These programs are 
to employ means and methods which will assist Federal, State 
and local agencies to identify relative contributions of 
particular nonpoint sources into those watersheds which are 
significantly affected by nonpoint sources of pollution.
    Based upon a recommendation of the National Forum on 
Nonpoint Source Pollution, the bill calls upon EPA and 
cooperating agencies at all levels of government to deploy 
water quality monitors in nonpoint source-influenced watersheds 
so that these monitors can help to identify the relative 
contributions of significant individual nonpoint sources. Most 
existing monitors were not sited with this objective in mind. 
The potential value of this approach is great and the need 
enormous. Without the most rudimentary information to 
distinguish sources which are significant contributors to water 
quality problems in a watershed from those which are not, both 
individual source owners and public officials have a limited 
foundation on which to base the voluntary actions, incentive 
measures, or regulation which may be appropriate. The Forum 
considered an example in the Midwest where the availability of 
such source-specific information surprised all concerned by 
showing one source to be the main contributor to the 
watershed's water quality problem--prompting the source owner 
to undertake voluntary corrective action.
    Grants to Local Government. Section 102(b) makes local 
governments eligible for grants under Section 104(b)(3) of the 
CWA. Local entities are key members to a successful partnership 
in combatting water pollution.
    Technical Assistance for Rural and Small Treatment Works. 
The Committee recognizes the financially burdensome situation 
facing the rural and small treatment works of our nation in 
their efforts to improve the water quality of the communities 
which they serve. Section 102(c) authorizes the EPA to make 
grants to nonprofit organizations for the purposes of providing 
technical assistance and training to rural and small, POTWs 
through a ``circuit rider'' program modelled after the 
``circuit rider'' program for drinking water systems under the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. The Committee intends, for purposes of 
this program, that ``rural and small'' shall mean communities 
with populations of 20,000 or less. Technical assistance is 
important to ensure the effective use of scarce funding, and 
can lead to less costly resolutions to water quality problems. 
Additionally, for the purposes of providing a complete and 
thorough support program, these organizations are directed to 
disseminate information to rural, small and disadvantaged 
communities with respect to the construction and operation of 
treatment works.
    Wastewater Treatment in Impoverished Communities. Section 
102(d) authorizes $50 million per year for fiscal years 1996 
through 2000 for EPA to award grants to the States for funding 
the planning, design and construction of POTWs in small, 
impoverished communities of 3,000 people or less that lack 
centralized sewage treatment systems and are severely 
economically disadvantaged.
    In communities with these circumstances, the committee 
believes the award of federal grant monies is justified for the 
protection of human health and the environment, and as further 
insurance for the Government's investment, grant monies may be 
used for training, technical assistance and educational 
programs relating to the operation and maintenance of such 
sanitation services.
    Despite enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act of 1972 and the expenditure of billions in federal funds 
for the construction of OPTWs, thousands of small communities 
still are not served by central wastewater treatment facilities 
today. Many small impoverished communities lack the resources 
even to repay low or zero-interest loans under the current SRF 
structure. Without financial assistance, untreated human sewage 
will continue to flow from pipes and seep from poorly 
functioning septic systems and privies, posing human health and 
environmental risks.
    The Committee anticipates working closely with the 
Administrator to develop appropriate criteria regarding 
``severely economically disadvantaged.''
    Authorization of Appropriations. Section 102(e) 
demonstrates the Committee's recognition of the importance of 
adequate funding to continue research, investigation and 
training in the areas of pollution prevention; and ensures that 
sound scientific information is available to all communities 
for addressing pollution problems. For instance, these funds 
could be used for research and technical guidance to reduce 
pollution from stormwater. This provision authorizes $50 
million per year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for grants 
to agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals for 
the purposes of research, investigation, experiments, training, 
relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, 
and elimination of pollution. One such recipient could 
certainly include the Water Environmental Research Foundation. 
These grants also are to be used for providing technical 
assistance to rural and small treatment works, except that no 
less than 20 percent of these sums shall be made available for 
providing technical assistance to rural and small treatment 
works.

Section 103. State management assistance

    Section 103 authorizes $150 million per year for fiscal 
years 1996 through 2000 under section 106 of the Act to assist 
States in administering State water pollution control programs 
and allowing the use of such funds to finance studies and 
projects on an interstate basis. This authorization is twice 
the amount historically authorized under this section. By this 
increase the Committee recognizes the Federal government's 
responsibility to fund currently mandated Clean Water Act 
requirements and support the additional burdens required under 
this legislation, such as the development and implementation of 
stormwater management programs under section 322, and the 
administration of State-delegated wetlands permitting programs 
under section 404.

Section 104. Mine water pollution control

    Section 104 establishes a demonstration program to 
illustrate the efficacy of measures to be used for abatement 
and treatment of the effects of acidic and other toxic mine 
drainage. The purpose of these measures is to restore the 
biological integrity of waters within the areas affected by 
past coal mining practices. Both States and Federal entities 
may apply for grants pursuant to this section.

Section 105. Water sanitation in rural and Native Alaska villages

    Section 105 authorizes $25 million, to be distributed 
through grants by the Administrator, for the purposes of 
developing and constructing sanitation facilities for rural and 
Native Alaska villages; and for providing training, technical 
assistance and educational programs relating to these 
sanitation services. Additionally, the funds may also be used 
for reasonable costs of administering and managing the grants; 
however, funds used for costs should not exceed four percent of 
the grant.

Section 106. Authorization of appropriations for Chesapeake program

    Section 106 authorizes $3 million per year for fiscal years 
1996 through 2000 for the Chesapeake Bay Program, and $18 
million per year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for 
interstate development plan grants under the Chesapeake Bay 
program.

Section 107. Great Lakes management

    Great Lakes Research Council. Section 107(a) establishes a 
council to promote the coordination of Federal Great Lakes 
research activities. The Great Lakes are unique and valuable 
national asset as one of the largest fresh water repository 
systems in the world, supporting a vast ecosystem. The Great 
Lakes not only provide an important source of drinking water 
for the region, but also provide recreational and industrial 
opportunities for the nation. The council will facilitate State 
and Federal efforts to preserve the integrity of the Great 
Lakes System through the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement.
    Consistency of Programs With Federal Guidance. Section 
107(b) amends section 118(c)(2)(C) of the Act by adding a new 
sentence to provide that, for purposes of the Great Lakes 
Initiative, a State's standards, procedures and policies shall 
be consistent with EPA guidance if they are based on 
scientifically defensible judgments and policy choices made by 
the State. These standards, procedures and policies should be 
made by the State after considering the guidance, and should 
provide an overall level of protection comparable to that 
provided by the guidance, taking into account the specific 
circumstances of the State's waters.
    Currently, section 118(c)(2) of the CWA directs EPA to 
publish proposed water quality guidance for the Great Lakes 
System. Within two years after the final guidance is published 
by EPA, Great Lakes States must adopt water quality standards, 
antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for 
waters within the Great Lakes System, which are consistent with 
such guidance. If a State does not do so within two years, EPA 
shall promulgate them for that State.
    On March 13, 1995, EPA issued the Final Water Quality 
Guidance for the Great Lakes System, also known as the ``Great 
Lakes initiative'' or ``GLI.'' (60 Fed. Reg. 15366, March 23, 
1995). Many witnesses testified that the final GLI goes 
considerably beyond the statutory requirement of section 
118(c)(2) that EPA issue ``guidance,'' and restricts the 
ability of the States to make their own judgments about the 
most effective way to achieve the laudable goal of protecting 
the Great Lakes System.
    H.R. 961 clarifies the intent of the statutory requirement 
that State's adopt water quality programs for a State 
``consistent with GLI.'' A State's program would be considered 
``consistent'' if (1) it was based on scientifically defensible 
judgments and policy choices made by the State after taking the 
GLI into account, and (2) if it provides an overall level of 
protection comparable to that provided by the GLI. It is not 
intended, nor should the effect of the amendment be, that any 
Great Lake State be relieved of its responsibility to develop 
and implement an effective water quality program. One of the 
principles behind the GLI is the benefit of uniformity among 
the various Great Lakes States.
    However, the current GLI places an extremely high burden on 
a State that proposes to adopt a requirement in its water 
quality program that differs from the corresponding GLI 
requirement. Section 132.4(h) of the GLI appears to provide 
that, for pollutants regulated under the GLI, a State must 
demonstrate that the GLI requirement is ``not scientifically 
defensible'' before it adopts a different water quality 
criteria or implementation procedure. Given the deference 
courts usually afford EPA on technical matters, States may face 
an almost impossible burden in developing alternative 
requirements that are protective of human health and the 
environment when a State's specific water quality circumstances 
are taken into account. The bill would provide greater 
flexibility but retain accountability to continue protecting 
and improving water quality.
    The phrase ``overall level of protection comparable to that 
provided by the guidance,'' clarifies that a State's program 
does not need to provide the identical level of protection on a 
provision by provision basis as that afforded by the GLI, to be 
considered ``consistent with'' the GLI. Section 132.5(g)(3) of 
the GLI requires that each and every element of a State's water 
quality program must be as protective as the corresponding 
element in the GLI for a State's water quality program to be 
deemed ``consistent with'' the GLI. States should be permitted 
to demonstrate to EPA that, overall, their programs provide a 
comparable level of protection, even if particular elements of 
a State's program are not adopted from the GLI. The bill 
provides the States with the ability to make this 
demonstration.
    Finally, the bill specifies that when EPA is evaluating 
whether the State's program is consistent with the GLI, EPA 
must take ``into account the specific circumstances of the 
State's waters.'' The GLI allows States limited ability to take 
sit-specific circumstances into account in the development of 
their programs, and even then, only with respect to the 
adoption or development of water quality criteria or values. 
The GLI should permit a State to demonstrate that the specific 
circumstances of the State's waters justify different 
requirements in other elements of the State's water quality 
programs--not just in the adoption or development of criteria 
or values. The bill would allow the States to develop their 
implementation procedures in a manner that appropriately 
addresses the States' specific water quality situations.
    In short, EPA's final GLI, while a considerable improvement 
over earlier proposals, is still very restrictive and does not 
provide the States with sufficient flexibility to tailor their 
water quality programs to their needs. The bill remedies these 
deficiencies, while providing an appropriate level of 
environmental protection and keeping in place a mechanism to 
significantly improve water quality.
    Reauthorization of Assessment and Remediation of 
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. Section 107(c) 
authorizes $3.5 million per year for fiscal years 1996 through 
2000 for the ARCS program and $1 million per year for fiscal 
years 1996 through 2000 for technical assistance. Initially, 
the Administrator of EPA, in consultation with the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army, is directed to conduct three projects 
involving promising technologies and practices to remedy 
contaminated sediments at sites in the Great Lakes System. The 
Administrator also has the discretion to expand the number of 
projects.
    Authorization of Appropriations. Section 107(d) authorizes 
$4 million per year for fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998, for 
the health research report identified in section 118 of the 
Act. Additionally, the bill provides an authorization of $17.5 
million per year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for the 
Great Lakes Programs.

                     title ii--construction grants

Section 201. Uses of funds

    Subsection (a) removes the limitation in existing law that 
no more than 20 percent of a State's SRF financing may be 
obligated to correct combined sewer overflows, construct 
collector sewer projects, and correct infiltration inflow.
    Subsection (b) requires EPA, with the concurrence of the 
States, to develop procedures to facilitate and expedite the 
retroactivity and provision of grant funding for facilities 
already under construction.

Section 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program

    This section allows EPA to negotiate a budget with States 
for using grant funds to administer the closeout of the 
construction grant program.

Section 203. Sewage collection systems

    Section 203 expands funding eligibility for sewage 
collection systems in existence after 1972 but prior to the 
date of enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995.

Section 204. Treatment works defined

    Subsection (a) amends the definition of ``treatment works'' 
under section 212 of the Act to clarify that the existing 
definition includes all land acquisition necessary for 
construction of the treatment works. This unambiguously makes 
such costs eligible for funding under the SRF program.
    Subsection (b) is a technical correction to remove 
unnecessary language in section 218 of the Act relating to cost 
effectiveness.

Section 205. Value engineering review

    Section 205 raises the threshold for requiring value 
engineering review for a project from $10 million to $25 
million.

Section 206. Grants for wastewater treatment

    Section 206 authorizes $300 million for fiscal year 1996 
(if the total amount appropriated to carry out Title VI of the 
Act is at least $3 billion in fiscal year 1996) for grants to 
(1) coastal localities including, but not limited to, New 
Orleans, Louisiana, coastal localities in Bristol County, 
Massachusetts, and other coastal localities meeting certain 
needs and hardship conditions and (2) small communities for the 
purpose of constructing treatment works.
    In many cases, funds authorized in this section will be 
used for responding to combined sewer overflows (CSOs). 
Construction of CSO control facilities is costly and local 
communities currently bear most of the cost. EPA conservatively 
estimates that CSO construction needs are presently $42 billion 
depending on case-by-case permit decisions yet to be made by 
the Agency or delegated to States under the National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System permit program. These costs will 
have a major impact on local governments and their sewer 
ratepayers.
    Much of the initial CSO permitting and construction effort 
focuses on coastal areas. The cities of Richmond and Lynchburg, 
Virginia, for instance, have developed and are implementing CSO 
control plans based on individual consent orders to comply with 
the Clean Water Act's CSO control requirements. Both city 
discharges influence the Chesapeake Bay. The Committee intends 
that some of the funds authorized in this section be available, 
on an equal basis, to Richmond and Lynchburg. Lynchburg's 
required program totals $250 million for 16,000 customers 
resulting in rates of 1.25 percent of median household income 
by 1998. Richmond's control program totals $400 million which 
will result in rates of 1.8 percent of median household income. 
These construction programs include innovative and alternative 
control features that will be of use to other communities in 
planning and designing least cost CSO facilities.

                  title iii--standards and enforcement

    Title III of the bill includes the provisions that amend 
Title III of the Clean Water Act. Title III of the Act 
addresses standards, effluent limitations, pretreatment 
standards, inspections, and enforcement.

Section 301. Effluent limitations

    Compliance Schedules. Section (a) amends section 301(b) of 
the Act to replace obsolete deadlines for compliance with 
effluent limitations with a three-year deadline. This section 
has prospective effect only and does not affect any past or 
pending enforcement actions.
    Modifications for Nonconventional Pollutants. Section (b) 
amends section 301(g) of the Act to remove the requirement that 
EPA first list a pollutant before the permitting authority (EPA 
or a State) may use the flexibility provided under section 
301(g) to allow a permittee to comply with Best Practicable 
Control Technology or water quality standards (whichever is 
applicable) is lieu of Best Available Technology. The 
demonstrations a permittee must make before it is eligible for 
such a modification are not amended.
    Since 1977, the Act has contained authority for a permit 
holder to receive a site-specific variance from Best Available 
Technology limitations for nonconventional pollutants, where 
the discharger demonstrates that less stringent limitations are 
sufficient to protect water quality and designated uses. In 
essence, this is a provision to prevent ``treatment for 
treatment's sake.'' This provision has been used very 
infrequently, however, in part because in 1987 Congress 
restricted the variance to five listed pollutants and any 
others that EPA adds to that list. To date, no pollutants have 
been added. Because this variance is applied on a case-by-case 
basis, it is not necessary to restrict it to certain 
pollutants.
    The Committee expects the permitting authority to subject 
any requests for a variance under this section to careful 
review to ensure that the permittee qualifies for the variance.
    Coal Remining. Section (c) amends section 301(p) of the Act 
to allow EPA or a State to make modifications to effluent 
limitations in permits for coal remining even if the remining 
operation exceeds State water quality standards if (1) the 
receiving waters do not meet water quality standards prior to 
remining and (2) as part of its permit application, the 
applicant submits a plan which demonstrates that identified 
measures will be utilized to improve the existing quality of 
the receiving water.
    This provision removes a barrier to remining operations 
that can be environmentally beneficial by reducing pollutants 
in discharges from former mining operations, thereby improving 
water quality.
    Preexisting Coal Remining Operations. Section (d) amends 
section 301(p) to provide that operators of a coal remining 
operation that commenced remining prior to the adoption of 
section 301(p) in a State program approved under section 402 
are deemed to be in compliance with sections 301, 302, 306, 
307, and 402 of this Act if (1) the post-mining discharges from 
the operation are the same or better than discharges prior to 
the coal remining operation and (2) the remining was conducted 
under a Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act permit.

Section 302. Pollution prevention opportunities

    The current system of command and control regulation has 
gone about as far as it can go in making major gains for the 
environment, and more creative solutions are needed to deal 
with the problems that remain. Pollution prevention, or not 
generating waste in the first place, is one approach to 
continuing environmental improvements.
    One of the most frequent complaints heard by the Committee 
during its consideration of the bill relates to the ``one-size-
fits-all'' requirements of the Clean Water Act. Through its 
rigid application of numerical and technology-based standards 
applicable at the end of the pipe, the Clean Water Act 
currently does not encourage multi-pollution prevention 
efforts. The ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to environmental 
standards was effective when most sources of pollution were 
uncontrolled. Now, with typical control technologies achieving 
95 to over 99 percent efficiency, the cost of achieving the 
last increment can be astronomical relative to the benefits 
derived. And, with its focus on one media alone, the Clean 
Water Act misses opportunities to rationalize the controls it 
imposes, so benefits across all media can be missed. Section 
302 of the bill amends the Clean Water Act to provide 
additional flexibility to allow permittees to engage in 
pollution prevention measures that are environmentally 
beneficial.
    In reviewing requests for the permit modifications provided 
for under this section, the Committee expects the permitting 
authority to subject any such requests to careful review to 
ensure that the permittee qualifies for the modification. In 
determining whether the modification will result in an overall 
net environmental benefit, the Committee expects the permitting 
authority to examine both acute and chronic effects on water 
quality. Through the permitting process, the public will have 
an opportunity to review and comment on any proposed 
modification. In addition, EPA retains the authority even in 
delegated States to review and, if appropriate, disapprove 
State permits. Accordingly, only those permit modifications 
that truly result in an environmental benefit should be 
authorized.
    Innovative Production Processes. Under section 301(k) of 
the current Act, EPA or a State may provide a waiver of a 
technology-based effluent limitation if the permittee proposes 
to develop and use an innovative pollution prevention 
technology in accordance with standards set out in that 
section. Section (a) amends section 301(k) to extend these 
innovative technology waivers from 2 to 3 years. This section 
also authorizes EPA or the State to make other appropriate 
modifications to permit conditions to implement the innovative 
pollution prevention technology. In addition, this section 
directs a court or EPA to take into account a permittee's good 
faith efforts to implement the innovative technology to reduce 
or eliminate any penalties for violations caused by the 
unexpected failure of the innovative technology. Finally, this 
section requires EPA to publish a report on innovative 
technologies. In implementing this section, the Committee 
intends the permitting authority to condition the permit upon 
implementation of the innovative pollution control technology 
that is designed to achieve the standards set forth in this 
section. The Committee does not intend the permitting authority 
to impose any permit limitations for pollutants in media other 
than water.
    Pollution Prevention Programs. Section (b) adds a new 
section 301(q) to the Act to authorize EPA or the State to 
modify technology-based standards in a permit or pretreatment 
program, where the permitting authority determines that 
pollution prevention measures taken by the source will achieve 
an overall reduction in emissions to the environment from the 
facility (including offsetting reductions in the discharge of 
pollutants by that source to other environmental media) that is 
(1) beyond that required by law, (2) greater than would 
otherwise be achievable, and (3) will result in an overall net 
benefit to the environment.
    The modification to the permit (or pretreatment program) 
may be extended beyond its initial term of 10 years. However, 
if the permitting authority does not extend the permit 
modification, the permittee shall have a reasonable period to 
time, not to exceed 2 years to come into compliance with 
otherwise applicable requirements of the Act.
    The Committee intends to provide the permitting authority 
with the flexibility to make appropriate adjustments to a 
permit to the extent necessary to allow an environmentally 
beneficial pollution prevention project to go forward. For 
example, a plant in Louisiana developed a multimedia pollution 
prevention project that would have avoided a costly expansion 
of its end-of-pipe wastewater treatment system to meet 
limitations for Total Suspended Solids. The project would have 
recovered 40,000 pounds of product each day, reduced land 
disposal by 3,000 pounds a day, cut air emissions and saved 
energy. However, pilot studies showed that while the rigid 
numerical standard for Total Suspended Solids could be met 
under most weather conditions, the engineers could not 
guarantee that the system would meet the standard 100 percent 
of the time. A very cold day in Louisiana might cause the limit 
to be exceeded by an environmentally insignificant amount. The 
plant could not take the risk of going forward with the project 
without the certainty of meeting the standard.
    Because the Act does not currently give permitting 
authorities any flexibility with respect to effluent 
limitations, this innovative solution could not be implemented. 
Under the bill, the permitting authority could condition the 
permit on implementation of this pollution prevention project 
and revise the standard for Total Suspended Solids in the 
permit to the level attainable by that project.
    In a report of the National Advisory Council for 
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), industry and 
environmentalists agreed that the Clean Water effluent 
guidelines process must be more flexible, and must impart the 
pollution prevention mindset. Business and environmental 
leaders have been struggling with this issue for some time. 
While they may not agree on the approach, they agree that 
environmental standards should be set in ways that encourage 
pollution prevention strategies. H.R. 961 has recognized this 
issue by allowing the Administrator, or authorized State, to 
modify the technology-based requirements of a section 402 
permit if pollution prevention measures or practices will 
result in greater overall reductions in emissions to the 
environment than would be otherwise achievable under the 
existing command-and-control regime.
    For the purposes of this section, the term ``pollution 
prevention measures or practices (including recycling, source 
reduction and other measures to reduce discharges or other 
releases to the environment beyond those otherwise required by 
law)'' is intended to allow dischargers the maximum flexibility 
to choose measures that provide the greatest opportunity for 
cost-effective improvements in environmental performance. The 
Agency is not expected to define or limit by regulations what 
measures will qualify. In addition, this section does not 
authorize the permitting authority to mandate particular 
measures or practices beyond those required by law in a permit 
without the consent of the permittee.
    Because new Section 301(q) only amends the Clean Water Act, 
it may only be used to modify a Clean Water permit limit. It 
does not provide authority for modification of any requirement 
under another statute and does not provide authority to impose 
limits on pollutants in media other than water. This action 
represents the limits of this Committee's jurisdiction. It 
should not be viewed as indicating opposition to a broader 
flexibility provision that would allow for modifications such 
as those available under 301(q) for other requirements of other 
environmental statutes, or multi-media permits.
    The concept of ``overall net benefit to the environment'' 
means that a facility can comply with the Act by implementing 
technology that can achieve greater net reductions in releases, 
waste generation, or health or environmental risk either in a 
single medium or across several media, than would otherwise be 
achieved in the aggregate under existing requirements. The 
assessment of net benefits should not require an exhaustive 
risk analysis, but the risk reduction consequences of proposed 
measures should be compared to those under the otherwise 
required measures. It will be left to the permitting 
authority's discretion to determine whether a discharger's 
proposed pollution prevention measure will result in an overall 
net benefit to the environment. The Committee fully expects EPA 
to issue guidance to permit writers to help them make these 
determinations. The Committee believes, however, that the 
facility should be free to demonstrate to the satisfaction of 
the permitting authority a verifiable means of measuring the 
net benefits. By not specifying a formula for such 
determinations, however, it is expected that innovative 
techniques will more rapidly develop.
    Pollution Reduction Agreements. Section (c) adds a new 
section 301(r) to the Act that authorizes EPA or the State to 
modify a permit (or a pretreatment program) where the 
permitting authority determines that the permittee has entered 
into a binding contractual agreement with another source within 
a watershed to implement pollution reduction measures beyond 
those required by law such that there will be an overall 
reduction in discharges to the watershed that is greater than 
would otherwise be achievable and resulting in a net benefit to 
the watershed.
    If a proposed trading agreement will result discharges into 
a watershed that is within the jurisdiction of two or more 
States, the permitting authority must notify the affected 
States or the proposed permit modification. An affected State 
may disapprove the proposed trading agreement if it acts within 
90 days of receiving such notice.
    New section 301(r) is intended to further promote 
innovative approaches to pollution prevention, either 
separately or in conjunction with new section 301(q). New 
section 301(r) allows a source to enter into a binding 
contractual agreement with another source in the same watershed 
to gain greater reductions in discharges to the watershed than 
would otherwise be achieved.
    The President's ``Reinventing Environmental Regulation'' 
initiative calls for an effluent trading program ``as a cost-
effective approach for reducing water pollution.'' The 
Administration estimates the potential cost savings for three 
types of effluent trading:
          $611 million to $5.6 billion for point source/
        nonpoint source trading;
          $8.4 million to $1.9 billion for point source/point 
        source trading;
          $658 million to $7.5 billion for trading among 
        indirect dischargers.
    Further reductions from sources that are already well-
controlled can be extremely expensive when compared to the 
environmental benefit achieved. Often reduction opportunities 
from less well controlled sources, such as certain nonpoint 
sources, are greater, and can be achieved far more cheaply. 
This provision will give EPA, the States, and sources the 
flexibility to explore the most cost-effective solutions to 
water pollution problems. This in turn, will increase actual 
progress in improving water quality.
    Antibacksliding. Section (d) amends section 402(o) of the 
Act to exempt pollution prevention programs, pollution 
reduction agreements and certain pollution prevention or water 
conservation measures from antibacksliding provisions.
    The current antibacksliding prohibition in section 402(o) 
generally prohibits the renewal or modification of a discharge 
permit to contain a less stringent effluent limitation. The 
provision is a barrier to changes in permit limitations that 
actually produce a net benefit to the environment.
    Types of pollution prevention activities for which 
antibacksliding barriers have been raised include utilizing 
treated wastewater as cooling water or substituting one process 
chemical for a less toxic one. In the first case, the use of 
treated wastewater as cooling water could require an increase 
in permit limitations for the cooling water discharge, to 
reflect pollutants in the treated wastewater (which would be 
discharged to surface waters anyway). In the second case, 
substituting a detergent cleaning process for chlorinated 
solvent cleaning would require an increase in a permit 
limitation for phosphate, even though the permitted discharge 
of the more toxic solvent would decrease. While these types of 
changes might fall within one of the current exemptions to 
section 402(o), this amendment assures that the antibacksliding 
prohibition does not discourage pollution prevention measures.
    Antidegradation Review. Section (d) amends section 303(d) 
to preclude EPA from requiring a State to perform an 
antidegradation review in the case of increased discharges 
resulting from permit modifications for nonconventional 
pollutants under section 301(g), to encourage innovative 
technologies under section 301(k), for pollution prevention 
programs under new section 301(q), for pollution reduction 
agreements under new section 301(r), and for POTWs serving 
populations of 20,000 people or fewer under new section 301(t).
    EPA's current antidegradation policy regulations require a 
special review of actions that result in ``degradation'' or 
``lowering of water quality.'' In some instances this has been 
interpreted very broadly to include any increase in any permit 
limitation, even though the overall impact on water quality is 
beneficial or insignificant. Steps to increase water recycling 
and decrease consumptive uses of water may be subjected to 
antidegradation review because they result in an increase in 
the concentration of a pollutant in the discharge, even though 
the mass of the pollutant discharged remains the same or 
decreases.
    The amendment does not preclude a State from conducting an 
antidegradation review if it so chooses. Instead, the amendment 
restores the State's primary responsibility for ensuring that 
water quality is protected.
    Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes, Technologies, 
and Methods. Section (f) amends section 307(e) to make changes 
to the existing pretreatment innovative technology waiver 
similar to those made to the general innovative technology 
waiver under section 302(a) of the bill.

Section 303. Water quality standards and implementation plans

    No Reasonable Relationship. Subsection (a) amends section 
303(b) of the Act of preclude EPA from establishing a water 
quality standard under 303(b) where the costs of attaining such 
a standard are not reasonably related to the anticipated 
benefits.
    This cost-benefit test applies to EPA only. No requirement 
of any cost-benefit analysis is placed on the State water 
quality standard setting process.
    Revision of State Standards. Subsection (b) amends section 
303(c) of the Act to make certain revisions to the process by 
which States set water quality standards.
    First, an amendment to section 303(c)(1) revises the 
timetable for State review of water quality standards from 
three years to five years. In addition, this amendment requires 
a State to initiate review of a State water quality standard 
that includes criteria that are revised by EPA, within 180 days 
of such revision. The amendment only requires States to hold a 
public hearing initiating the review process within the 180 day 
time period specified in the bill. The Committee does not 
expect a State to complete a revision of a State water quality 
standard (if the State determines such revision is necessary) 
within 180 days. Nor does it require a State to complete the 
review process after the public hearing if the State determines 
that revision of its State water quality standard is not 
appropriate.
    Second, section 303(c)(2) is amended to allow States to 
consider costs and benefits when setting water quality 
standards. In addition, this section is amended to require 
States, when reviewing a State water quality standard that 
contains criteria which EPA has revised since the date of 
enactment of this bill, to include in any administrative record 
required under State law a copy of the EPA's estimate of the 
cost of complying with the revised criteria (that section 
307(c) of the bill requires EPA to develop), if available. The 
State administrative record also shall include any comments 
received by the State on the EPA cost estimate during its 
review of its State water quality standard.
    Revision of Designated Uses. Subsection (c) requires EPA to 
amend its regulations regarding designation of uses of waters 
by States. For State waters that are not attaining their 
designated uses, EPA must amend its regulations to allow a 
State to modify the designated use of such waters if the State 
determines that attainment of the designated use is infeasible 
(as defined by the Administrator), or if the State determines 
that the costs of achieving the designated use are not 
justified by the benefits. For State waters that are attaining 
their designated uses, EPA must amend its regulations to allow 
a State to modify the designated use of such a water only if 
the State determines that continued maintenance of water 
quality necessary to support the designated use will result in 
significant social or economic dislocations substantially out 
of proportion to the benefits. This amendment also allows a 
permitting authority to modify water quality based limits in 
permits to conform to any modified designated use.
    This amendment gives States greater flexibility in revising 
the designated uses of receiving waters. This flexibility is 
necessary because, in 1975, EPA required States to designate 
all waters that had not yet been assigned a designed use as 
``fishable, swimmable'' waters. Accordingly, some waters, such 
as certain dry stream beds in the arid west, have been assigned 
totally infeasible designated uses.

Section 304. Use of biological monitoring

    Section 304 of the bill provides important revisions to the 
biological monitoring provisions of section 303(c)(2)(B) of the 
Act. Biological monitoring and whole effluent toxicity testing 
was incorporated into the Clean Water Act in 1987 to provide 
for the detection of toxicity to receiving waters where 
chemical specific criteria were not available. However, in 
implementing this authority, EPA has chosen to use a limited 
number of non-site specific species for use in biological 
monitoring. In addition, EPA's whole effluent toxicity test has 
proven to be inherently unreliable, with a variability of plus 
or minus 30% or greater. Notwithstanding the irrelevance of 
many test species and the variability of the test, EPA has 
chosen to treat each whole effluent toxicity test failure as a 
violation of the Act enforceable by EPA or through citizen 
suits. Thus, dischargers face up to $25,000 per day penalties 
for each test failure when the only way to completely guarantee 
against test failures is to construct highly advanced and 
costly treatment processes such as reverse osmosis.
    Laboratory Biological Monitoring Criteria. To address 
concerns over the relevance and reliability of such testing, 
section 304(a) of the bill amends section 303(c)(2) to require 
criteria for whole effluent toxicity based on laboratory 
biological monitoring or assessment methods to use an aquatic 
species that is indigenous or representative of indigenous and 
relevant to the type of waters covered by such criteria. In 
addition, such criteria must take into account analytical 
variability. The Committee intends to prevent the permitting 
authority from using highly sensitive species that are not 
found in the receiving water ecosystem for whole effluent 
toxicity testing. However, the Committee also recognizes that 
some flexibility is required because if a receiving water is 
degraded, only the most hardy species may remain. Accordingly, 
the Committee intends the permitting authority to use species 
that are representative of species that one finds in a 
receiving water but for the water quality impairment.
    Permit Procedures. To address concern over the 
inappropriate use of biological monitoring or whole effluent 
toxicity testing as enforceable permit conditions, section 
304(b) of the bill adds a new subsection (q) to section 402 to 
specifically address permit conditions relating to biological 
monitoring. Under this new subsection, permits requiring 
biological monitoring or whole effluent toxicity testing must 
include procedures for responding to test failure by 
identifying and reducing, or, where feasible, eliminating, the 
source of toxicity. The new subsection also specifies that the 
failure of a biological monitoring test or whole effluent 
toxicity test will not result in a finding of violation under 
this Act unless the permittee has failed to comply with such 
procedures. Finally, new subsection (q) specifies that a permit 
be written to allow permittees to discontinue response 
procedures if certain conditions are met. If the permittee is a 
POTW, the permittee may discontinue response procedures if the 
source or cause of the toxicity cannot, after a thorough 
investigation, be identified. If the permittee is not a POTW, 
the permittee may discontinue response procedures if the 
permittee performs a field bioassessment study and demonstrates 
that a balanced and healthy population of aquatic species lives 
in the receiving waters affected by the discharge and water 
quality standards (other than the standard for whole effluent 
toxicity) are met for such waters.
    The Committee intends the permit writer to have the 
flexibility to include conditions necessary to protect water 
quality in the permit, within the parameters specified in new 
subsection (q). Response procedures may include testing and 
investigations to identify the source of the toxicity. Once the 
source of toxicity is identified, the response procedures may 
then require reduction of the source of toxicity, or, if 
feasible, elimination of the source of toxicity entirely 
through pollution prevention or source reduction.
    If an industrial discharger cannot identify the source of 
toxicity, the permit conditions may still require that 
discharger to take actions to reduce or eliminate the toxicity 
through treatment or otherwise unless the permittee 
demonstrates that there is no toxicity problem in the receiving 
waters through a field bioassessment study.
    If, however, a POTW cannot identify the source of toxicity 
after a thorough investigation, the permit must allow it to 
discontinue its response procedures. Feasible response 
procedures for POTWs do not include any requirement to install 
treatment technology. This ``off-ramp'' is appropriate for a 
POTW, which does not have complete control over the pollutants 
introduced to its treatment system. A treatment works' toxicity 
test failure may be the result of unintended combinations of 
innocuous substances from household products discharged to 
sewers or illegal discharges beyond the control of the 
treatment works. Toxicity from these types of sources is a 
short-term event. Of course, if the treatment works has another 
test failure the next time it conducts whole effluent toxicity 
testing, the response procedures begin anew.
    Information on Water Quality Criteria. Section 304(c) of 
the bill amends section 304(a)(8) of the Act to ensure that 
information published by EPA on water quality criteria for 
toxicity using biological monitoring and assessment methods is 
consistent with the requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B), as 
amended.

Section 305. Arid areas

    Water bodies in the western, arid part of the United States 
often have very different characteristics from water bodies in 
other parts of the country. The Clean Water Act does not 
currently take into account regional differences. For example, 
in the West there is extensive use of canals for irrigation 
waters and other purposes. Not all of these canals are waters 
of the United States. However, if a canal is a water of the 
United States, flexibility is needed in setting water quality 
standards to allow the canal to serve its intended purpose. In 
addition, some waters in arid areas are not perennial streams. 
These streams have water only seasonally or after a storm 
event. Other streams in arid areas consist entirely of effluent 
much of the year and, but for the effluent, would be dry stream 
beds. This section of the bill provides flexibility to allow 
States to take into account the unique characteristics of the 
arid West when setting water quality standards for these 
waters.
    Constructed Water Conveyances. Section 305(a) of the bill 
amends section 303(c)(2) of the Act to authorize States to take 
into consideration relevant uses, return flow from, 
maintenance, and purposes of constructed water conveyances; and 
State or regional water resources management and water 
conservation plans, when setting water quality standards for 
constructed water conveyances. Nothing in this provision is 
intended to affect any authorities or programs of the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    Criteria and Guidance for Ephemeral and Effluent-Dependent 
Streams. Section 305(b) amends section 304(a) of the Act to 
require EPA to develop and publish criteria for ephemeral and 
effluent-dependent streams and guidance to States for 
developing water quality standards for such streams within 2 
years of enactment, taking into account factors relevant to 
such streams.
    Factors Required to be Considered by Administrator. Section 
305(c) amends section 303(c)(4) of the Act to require EPA to 
take into account relevant factors when revising or adopting 
any new standard for ephemeral or effluent-dependent streams.
    Definitions. Section 305(d) amends section 502 to add 
definitions for effluent-dependent streams, ephemeral streams, 
and constructed water conveyances.

Section 306. Total maximum daily loads

    Currently, section 303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act 
requires States to calculate a total maximum daily load (TMDL) 
for each receiving water that is not currently meeting 
applicable water quality standards. As a result of this 
statutory language, States have been sued for failure to 
establish TMDLs, even where a State may not have sufficient 
data to do so. In addition, when a State is not able to 
identify all sources of pollution contributing to a violation 
of a water quality standard, EPA requires that the entire load 
reduction necessary to meet water quality standards be assigned 
to point sources in the absence of ``reasonable assurances'' 
that nonpoint source pollution reductions will be achieved.
    The bill amends section 303(d)(1)(C) to provide States with 
greater flexibility in performing TMDLs by giving States the 
authority to determine whether and when a TMDL is necessary to 
achieve further reasonable progress toward the attainment or 
maintenance of water quality standards. States also are 
authorized to consider anticipated load reductions from 
implementation of management practices, stormwater controls or 
other nonpoint or point source controls when establishing 
TMDLs.
    To ensure that, when a State decides to establish a TMDL, 
it does so in a scientifically sound manner, the bill also 
requires States to consider the availability of scientifically 
valid data and information, projected reductions for all 
sources, and cost-effectiveness of control measures when 
establishing TMDLs.

Section 307. Revision of criteria, standards, and limitations

    During consideration of H.R. 961, the Committee heard many 
expressions of concern over the need to ensure that water 
quality criteria, standards, and effluent limitations are based 
on sound science. The amendments in this section of the bill 
address this concern.
    Revision of Water Quality Criteria. Section 307(a) of the 
bill amends section 304(a) of the Act to add factors to be 
reflected in EPA water quality criteria, including what 
organisms are likely to be present in the ecosystem, 
bioavailability of pollutants, exposure required to induce 
adverse effects, and bioaccumulation threat.
    This amendment also requires EPA to certify every 5 years 
that water quality criteria reflect the latest and best 
scientific knowledge. EPA must update all existing criteria 
within 5 years, and ammonia, chronic effluent toxicity, and 
metals within 1 year, as necessary to make this certification. 
Particular concern has been raised regarding metals criteria 
documents. EPA knows that these many of the metals criteria are 
out of date and will result in limitations below what is 
necessary to protect human health and the environment, but has 
not updated these criteria due to other priorities. This 
amendment makes updating metals criteria, as well as criteria 
for ammonia and chronic whole effluent toxicity, a high 
priority for the agency.
    Consideration of Certain Contaminants. Section 307(b) 
amends section 304(a) of the Act to require EPA to consider 
contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act when 
developing and revising water quality criteria.
    Cost Estimate. Section 307(c) amends section 304(a) to 
require EPA, when issuing or revising water quality criteria, 
to develop and publish an estimate of the costs that would 
likely be incurred if sources were required to comply with the 
criteria. The Committee recognizes that EPA will have to make 
assumptions and use model scenarios to develop this cost 
estimates. However, the Committee believes that it is important 
for the public and States to have information regarding costs 
of compliance with water quality criteria when such criteria 
are incorporated into water quality standards. This amendment 
does not require EPA to perform a cost-benefit analysis, nor 
does it require water quality criteria to meet any cost-
effectiveness test. The criteria document and the cost 
information can be two separate, stand-alone documents.
    Revision of Effluent Limitations. Section 307(d) amends 
section 304(b) of the Act. First, this amendment eliminates the 
impracticable requirement that EPA review all of the 
categorical effluent guidelines every year. Second, this 
amendment clarifies that, where Best Practicable Technology 
effluent guidelines have already been published for an 
industrial category, additional, more stringent requirements 
for conventional pollutants can be imposed only if they meet 
the Best Conventional Technology economic reasonableness tests 
currently specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
    In 1977, Congress concluded that Best Practical Technology 
had largely addressed control of industrial discharges of 
conventional pollutants. Additional efforts were focused on 
toxics, but additional conventional pollutant treatment could 
be required if economically reasonable. Recently, in effluent 
guidelines rulemakings for the pulp and paper and 
pharmaceutical manufacturing categories, EPA has suggested that 
it can impose more stringent conventional pollutant limitations 
which do not meet Best Conventional Technology economic 
reasonableness tests, simply by revising Best Practicable 
Technology. This would result in precisely the ``treatment for 
treatment's sake'' that Congress sought to avoid in 1977. As 
Congress concluded in 1977, an industry category should not be 
required to make even further reductions in conventional 
pollutants where the cost is greater than what additional 
removal of the same conventional pollutants would cost at a 
POTW.
    Schedule for Review of Guidelines. Section 307(e) amends 
section 304(m) of the Act to require EPA to identify categories 
of sources for which guidelines under section 304(b)(2) and 
section 306 have not been set, determine which sources have 
discharges that present a significant risk to human health and 
the environment and establish a schedule for issuing effluent 
guidelines for such sources.
    EPA's current effluent guidelines plan is based on a 1992 
consent degree settling a 1989 lawsuit filed by the Natural 
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against EPA. The consent 
decree lists certain industry categories for which EPA must 
develop effluent guidelines and commits EPA to a schedule for 
conducting preliminary studies, and proposing and issuing 
additional effluent guidelines. In this consent decree, NRDC 
disputed whether EPA has the discretion to decide not to 
proceed with the development of an effluent guideline where EPA 
determines that the guideline would not have the potential to 
significantly reduce risk to human health or the environment. 
NRDC reserved the right to sue EPA again if the agency did not 
issue the guidelines listed in the decree and continue to issue 
additional effluent guidelines on the schedule set forth in the 
decree, even if EPA determined that no significant risk would 
be reduced by issuing those guidelines. This amendment 
supersedes the NRDC consent degree to ensure that EPA has the 
flexibility to, and in fact does, focus its limited resources 
for guidelines development on sources that present a 
significant risk.
    Revision of Pretreatment Requirements. Section 307(f) of 
the bill amends section 304(g) to eliminate the impracticable 
requirement that EPA review all of the categorical pretreatment 
standards every year.
    Central Treatment Facility Exemption. Section 307(g) adds a 
new subsection to section 304 of the Act to codify the existing 
regulatory exemption from effluent guidelines for certain 
central treatment facilities in the Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Point Source Category. When the effluent 
guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing category were 
promulgated in the early 1980's, EPA did not evaluate 
facilities that treat all of their individual waste streams in 
a ``central treatment facility.'' In order to settle challenges 
raised by industry representatives, the effluent guideline 
regulation was amended by EPA to provide an exemption for 
certain treatment facilities that received the combined waste 
streams of a number of processes and source subcategories at 
steel plants. The 21 central treatment facilities subject to 
the exemption were listed by name in the regulation at 40 
C.F.R. section 420.01. This exemption was to last until the 
regulation was amended to establish effluent guidelines 
specifically for central treatment facilities. EPA has never 
published a revised effluent guideline applicable to central 
treatment facilities. Accordingly, the exemption for central 
treatment facilities at any of the listed steel plants 
continues to be available.

Section 308. Information and guidelines

    Section 308 amends section 304(i) of the Act to modify 
current requirements for eligibility to sit on permit review 
boards to increase flexibility for government officials and 
retirees.

Section 309. Secondary treatment

    The debate on Clean Water Act reauthorization, as well as 
the debate on unfunded mandates generally, identified the Clean 
Water Act requirement that municipal wastewater treatment 
plants meet secondary treatment standards as one of the most 
burdensome mandates on manicipalities. A significant number of 
smaller communities have been unable to meet this requirement 
for a number of reasons. Capital costs for construction of 
costly and sophisticated secondary treatment facilities are 
often beyond the means of small communities, even with zero 
interest loans. The technical expertise to operate and maintain 
these facilities is often not available in these communities. 
In addition, to be cost-effective, secondary treatment 
facilities require an economy of scale not found in small 
communities. This section of the bill adds flexibility to the 
implementation of secondary treatment requirements to address 
these concerns. In addition, secondary treatment may provide no 
environmental benefit when the treatment plant discharges 
through a deep ocean outfall. This section of the bill also 
addresses these concerns.
    Coastal Discharges. Section 309(a) amends section 304(d) of 
the Act to provide that a municipal wastewater treatment 
facility be considered a secondary treatment facility if the 
facility discharge is subject to chemically enhanced primary 
treatment; discharges through an ocean outfall greater than 4 
miles offshore; is in compliance with all State and local water 
quality standards for reciving waters; and is subject to an 
ocean monitoring program.
    Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements. Section 
309(b) adds a new section 301(s) to the Act to require EPA to 
modify secondary treatment requirements if the POTW discharges 
pollutants into marine waters that are at least 150 feet deep 
through an ocean outfall which discharges at least 1 mile 
offshore; the facility's discharge is in compliance with all 
water quality standards for receiving waters; the discharge 
will be subject to an ocean monitoring program; the applicant 
has in place an EPA-approved pretreatment plan; and the 
effluent has received chemically enhanced primary treatment and 
achieves a monthly average removal of 75% removal of suspended 
solids.
    Modifications for Small System Treatment Technologies. 
Section 309(c) amends section 301 to add a new subsection (t) 
to allow EPA or a State to issue a permit that modifies 
secondary treatment requirements for POTWs serving communities 
with a population of 20,000 or fewer if the POTW demonstrates 
(1) that the effluent is from domestic users, and (2) the 
facility has an alternative treatment system that is equivalent 
to secondary treatment or will provide an adequate level of 
protection to human health and the environment and contribute 
to the attainment of water quality standards in the receiving 
water and watershed.
    The Committee intends for this amendment to provide EPA and 
States with the statutory authority and increased flexibility 
to approve innovative alternative treatment systems for small 
communities, and to deem that such systems meet the technology-
based requirements of the Act. Many alternatives to full 
secondary treatment have been researched, developed, or 
improved to the point that they now represent a realistic 
alternative for small communities. These treatment systems, 
which include constructed wetlands, recirculating sand filters, 
oxidation lagoons, and other ``natural'' land-based and water-
based systems, offer an environmentally protective, cost-
effective, and relatively low technology option for helping 
small communities meet their wastewater needs.
    Puerto Rico. Section 309(d) further amends section 301 to 
add a new subsection (u) to allow Puerto Rico to initiate a 
study to determine the feasibility of a deepwater outfall for 
the POTW located at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico and allow the 
Mayaguez treatment works to submit an application for a 301(h) 
waiver of secondary treatment requirements within 18 months of 
enactment.
    The community of Mayaguez has been prevented from 
constructing a deep ocean outfall to improve the effectiveness 
of its sewage treatment program. Mayaguez has been unable to 
receive a wavier from secondary treatment requirements, 
preventing the construction of a deep ocean outfall. Section 
309(d) would allow such an application, and allow EPA to review 
a new deep ocean outfall proposal pursuant to current Clean 
Water Act standards for such outfalls. Section 309(d) does not 
alter the rigorous criteria for issuing such a waiver, or 
override the judgment of EPA.
    Puerto Rico has elicited comments from scientists and waste 
water treatment experts, who are in agreement on the merits of 
constructing a deep ocean outfall in Mayaguez. Apparently, it 
will save the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico approximately $65 
million and have environmental benefit as well.
    The history of Puerto Rico's difficulties in gaining 
approval from EPA for a deep ocean outfall are well documented. 
Section 309(d) should allow Puerto Rico and the EPA to reach 
accord on the construction of a deep ocean outfall. This 
provision allows EPA to review Puerto Rico's new deep ocean 
outfall application. It allows Puerto Rico to apply under 
existing Section 301(h) standards for a modification that best 
protects the marine environment. It presents a reasonable 
compromise, allowing the Commonwealth and EPA to implement a 
municipal sewage disposal program that is based on sound 
science and appropriate environmental and economic 
considerations.
    Under this provision, EPA is required to make a final 
determination within nine months of receiving an application. 
If EPA grants the waiver, Puerto Rico is required to complete 
construction of the outfall within five years of the date of 
enactment. These requirements ensure that the Agency and the 
Commonwealth act expeditiously to construct a facility that 
will benefit the environment and the residents of Puerto Rico.
    This measure is consistent with existing waiver standards 
in the Clean Water Act, and will only be fully implemented by 
EPA if environmental and economic objectives can be 
successfully met.

Section 310. Toxic pollutants

    Toxic Effluent Limitations and Standards. Section 310(a) of 
the bill amends section 307(a)(2) of the Act to require that 
specific factors be considered by EPA in promulgating effluent 
standards (or prohibitions) for toxic chemicals. The factors to 
be considered include the pollutant's persistence, toxicity, 
degradability, and bioaccumulation potential; the magnitude of 
risk; the relative contribution of point source discharges to 
the risk; the availability of substitute chemicals; the 
beneficial and adverse social and economic effect; the 
availability of other regulatory authorities; and such other 
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.
    Beach Water Quality Monitoring. Section 310(b) of the bill 
amends 304 of the Act to require EPA, in consultation with 
Federal, State, and local agencies, to issue guidance within 18 
months of enactment on beach water quality monitoring and the 
issuance of health advisories. EPA also must report on 
information available on State beach water quality monitoring.
    Fish Consumption Advisories. Section 310(c) of the bill 
specifies that any fish consumption advisories issued by EPA 
must be based on the protocols, methodology, and findings of 
FDA.

Section 311. Local pretreatment authority

    Section 311 of the bill adds a new subsection (f) to 
section 307 of the Act to allow a POTW to apply local limits in 
lieu of national categorical pretreatment standards for the 
purpose of eliminating redundant treatment or reducing the 
administrative burden on the POTW.
    Industrial pretreatment and EPA-approved local pretreatment 
limits have been an integral part of POTW operations for many 
decades. Some local programs even predate passage of the 1972 
Act. Considering the complexities of operating POTWs and 
attaining water quality, the implementation of pretreatment 
programs is among the most important contributions that POTWs 
have been making to environmental protection, while at the same 
time protecting the treatment facility and generating 
beneficially usable biosolids.
    Section 307(b) of the present Act authorizes EPA to 
establish and revise federal pretreatment standards; provides 
that the revision of categorical standards for individual POTWs 
``reflect the removal'' of toxic pollutants by such POTWs; and 
provides that ``[n]othing in this subsection shall affect any 
pretreatment requirement established by any State or local law 
not in conflict with any pretreatment standard under this 
section.''
    POTW pretreatment programs have been a highly successful 
part of the Act in reducing the discharge of toxics to POTWs 
and enhancing the quality of the nation's waters. Such programs 
remain critically important to water quality and to the ability 
of POTWs to meet federal biosolids and air quality 
requirements.
    For many POTWs, these environmental objectives can best be 
achieved by use of locally developed pretreatment limits in 
lieu of federal categorical standards. Currently, such local 
pretreatment limits regulate many more industries than those 
covered by federal categorical standards.
    The use of local limits to achieve such objectives and 
requirements can result in the elimination of additional, 
redundant, or unnecessary treatment by industrial users of 
POTWs which has little or no environmental benefit. Such 
redundant or unnecessary treatment should be limited as a 
matter of common sense, so long as the POTW can meet the 
objectives of the Act.
    EPA has always recognized the utility of local limits since 
more stringent local limits must be applied in lieu of 
categorical standards. The mechanism for calculation of local 
limits was developed by EPA to protect the POTW, prevent pass 
through of pollutants (including toxics), and protect the 
quality of biosolids. To be approved, a local pretreatment 
program must prevent the discharge of any pollution which would 
interfere with, pass through, or otherwise be incompatible with 
the POTW.
    In contrast, national categorical pretreatment standards 
are technology-based standards. As a result, national standards 
often are not consistent with local standards and in some cases 
may conflict with the needs of a local POTW. For example, a 
national categorical pretreatment standard for a can coating 
operation requires removal of phosphorus, even where the 
facility discharges to a POTW that has a phosphorus deficiency. 
As a result, the facility must pretreat for phosphorus, thereby 
using energy and creating sludge, and the POTW has to buy 
phosphorus to add to its system.
    Section 311 of the bill strengthens environmental 
protection while allowing common sense flexibility by allowing 
approved pretreatment programs at POTWs to be operated under 
performance based statutory conditions without sacrificing 
water quality or other environmental objectives.
    To obtain approval to apply local limits in lieu of 
categorical pretreatment standards, a POTW must make four 
demonstrations to the permitting authority: (1) the POTW is in 
compliance, and is likely to remain in compliance, with its 
permit under section 402; (2) the POTW is in compliance, and is 
likely to remain in compliance, with applicable air emissions 
limitations; (3) biosolids produced by the POTW meet beneficial 
use requirements under section 405; and (4) the POTW is likely 
to continue to meet all applicable State requirements. The 
permitting authority may disapprove any request if it believes 
that these criteria will not be met.
    Two important limitations are placed on this provision. 
First, a POTW may not apply local limits in lieu of categorical 
pretreatment requirements applicable to any industrial user 
that is in significant noncompliance (as defined by EPA) with 
the pretreatment program. Second, the demonstration to EPA or 
the State under section 307(f)(1) must be made under the 
procedures for pretreatment program modification provided for 
under sections 307 and 402 of the Act.
    Finally, the POTW must demonstrate continued compliance 
with the conditions of this section in its annual pretreatment 
report to EPA or the State.

Section 312. Compliance with management practices

    Section 312 of the bill adds new section 307(g) to the Act 
to authorize EPA or a State to allow persons who introduce 
silver into POTWs to comply with a code of management practices 
in lieu of a pretreatment requirement for silver for a period 
not to exceed five years from the date of enactment. The code 
of management practices must meet requirements set out in this 
section, be approved by EPA, and be accepted by the POTW. The 
person introducing silver into the POTW also must comply with a 
Best Available Technology standard.
    If EPA or a State allows persons to comply with such a code 
of management practices in lieu of a pretreatment standard for 
silver under this section, EPA or a State must modify the 
POTW's permit conditions and effluent limitations to defer, for 
a period not to exceed five years, compliance with any effluent 
limitation derived from a water quality standard for silver if 
the receiving waters will be adequately protected.
    This amendment provides relief for the photoprocessing 
industry and other users of silver who introduce silver into 
POTWs. In order to comply with extremely stringent water 
quality standards for silver, POTWs have enforced equally 
stringent local pretreatment limits on indirect dischargers of 
silver. However, State water quality standards for silver are 
based on outdated scientific assumptions, so both the water 
quality standards that POTWs must meet and the local 
pretreatment limits that the photoprocessing industry and other 
users of silver must meet are unnecessarily stringent.
    In 1990, EPA published draft chronic water quality criteria 
for silver. After publication, EPA concluded that silver does 
not pose a human health hazard, withdrew these draft criteria, 
and advised States that water quality standards for silver are 
not needed. In fact, EPA has even deleted the primary Maximum 
Contaminant Level of silver under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
EPA also has recognized that silver, and several other metals, 
is more appropriately measured and regulated on the basis of 
its dissolved form, rather than on the basis of total metals, 
as in previous water quality standards.
    Before EPA's recognition of its error, many States adopted 
water quality standards for silver based on the inaccurate and 
subsequently withdrawn silver criteria and have not taken 
action to revise or delete these standards. As a result, POTWs 
in many effluent limitations for silver, and many indirect 
dischargers are therefore subject to impossibly low local 
limits for silver, with no environmental benefit.
    Section 312 of the bill gives EPA the flexibility to 
provide interim relief from these overly stringent silver 
limits for five years. Under other provisions of the bill, EPA 
is required to update its criteria documents for metals within 
one year, and States are required to hold a hearing to consider 
review of their State water quality standard within 180 days of 
EPA's revision of any applicable water quality criterion. 
Accordingly, the Committee expects that States with water 
quality standards for silver will revise those standards within 
the next five years.

Section 313. Federal enforcement

    Adjustment of Penalties. Section 313(a) of the bill amends 
section 309 of the Act to provide for a consumer price index 
adjustment to automatically increase or decrease all penalty 
limits in the Act.
    Joining States as Parties in Actions Involving 
Municipalities. Section 313(b) amends section 309(e) of the Act 
to make the joining of States as parties to litigation 
involving municipalities permissive rather than mandatory.

Section 314. Response plans for discharges of oil or hazardous 
        substances

    Section 314 includes a general provision relating to the 
applicability of certain oil or hazardous substance response 
planning requirements under the CWA.
    The provision clarifies how total facility oil storage 
capacity should be calculated under the EPA's regulations 
implementing section 311(j)(5) of the CWA, as amended by the 
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The provision is necessary to 
ensure that requirements imposed by section 311(j)(5) to 
prepare facility response plans (FRPs), and to engage in 
training and certain other activities, are triggered only when 
a facility poses a threat of ``substantial harm'' to the 
environment due to its potential to release significant 
quantities of oil.
    This provision also clarifies that the requirements of 
section 311(j)(5) do not apply to municipal and industrial 
treatment works, or to facilities that store quantities of 
process water mixed with de minimis quantities of oil. This is 
consistent with the Congressional intent behind the OPA. The 
Committee recognizes, through this provision, that municipal 
and industrial treatment works, and facilities storing process 
water mixed with de minimis quantities of oil, do not pose the 
threat of harm to the environment that Congress sought to 
address through section 311(j)(5).
    Section 314 also directs the President to issue regulations 
clarifying the meaning of the term ``de minimis quantities of 
oil or hazardous substances.''

Section 315. Marine sanitation devices

    Section 315 of the bill amends section 312(c) of the Act to 
require EPA to review and, if necessary, revise standards for 
marine sanitation devices within 2 years of enactment, and 
every 5 years thereafter, following notice and comment, and in 
consultation with the Coast Guard.

Section 316. Federal facilities

    In 1972, Congress included provisions on Federal facility 
compliance with our nation's water pollution laws in section 
313 of the Clean Water Act. Section 313 called for federal 
facilities to comply with all Federal, State, and local water 
pollution requirements.
    In April 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Dept. 
of Energy v. Ohio, that States could not impose certain fines 
and penalties against Federal agencies, for violations of the 
Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act 
(RCRA). This decision led to the enactment of the Federal 
Facilities Compliance Act (H.R. 2194) in the 102nd Congress to 
clarify that Congress intended to waive sovereign immunity for 
agencies in violation of RCRA. Federal agencies in violation of 
the RCRA are now subject to State levied fines and penalties. 
The 1992 Act, however, did not address the Supreme Court's 
decision with regard to the Clean Water Act.
    Section 316 of H.R. 961, clarifies the intent of section 
313 of the Clean Water Act. This measure reaffirms the waiver 
of sovereign immunity. This waiver subjects the Federal 
government to the full range of enforcement mechanisms 
available under the Clean Water Act.
    Section 316 is primarily a restatement of existing policies 
in the Clean Water Act governing Federal facilities. Changes 
made by section 316, including the clarification of the waiver 
of sovereign immunity, apply prospectively.
    Subsection (a), Applicability of Federal, State, Interstate 
and local laws, is modeled after section 313(a) of the Act and 
is intended to embody the same concepts as section 313. New 
paragraph 313(a)(7) of the Clean Water Act subjects agents, 
employees, and officers of the U.S. to criminal sanctions under 
Federal or State water pollution laws. The Committee, however, 
does not intend that agents, employees or officers be subject 
to criminal sanctions if their failure to comply with the Clean 
Water Act is caused by action or inaction of their employers--
such as an agency's failure to purchase appropriate wastewater 
treatment equipment or provide adequate funding to maintain 
treatment operations.
    Subsection (b), Funds Collected by a State is designed to 
ensure that States are using revenues collected for Federal 
violations of water laws to improve water quality.
    Subsection (c), Enforcement, gives EPA the authority to 
bring an administrative enforcement action against another 
Federal government entity.
    Subsection (d), Limitation on Actions and Right of 
Intervention, precludes citizen suits under section 505 
relating to violations that the Administrator is diligently 
pursuing or has resolved through issuance of a final order.
    Subsection (e), Definition of Person, defines person to 
include any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
United States.
    Subsection (f), Definition of Radioactive Materials, adds 
definition of radioactive materials to section 502 of the Act. 
This term excludes materials discharged from certain vessels in 
the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.

Section 317. Clean lakes

    Section 317 of the bill amends section 314(d) of the Act to 
add Paris Twin Lakes, Illinois; Otsego Lake, New York; and 
Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, to the Clean Lakes program 
priority list. This section also authorizes $10 million per 
year for fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2000 to carry out the 
Clean Lakes program.

Section 318. Cooling water intake structures

    Section 318 of the bill amends section 316(b) of the Act to 
identify factors for EPA to take into account in determining 
best technology available for new and existing cooling water 
intake structures.

Section 319. Nonpoint source management programs

    Section 319, a central feature of H.R. 961, strengthens, 
coordinates, and improves the nation's current approach to 
nonpoint sources of pollution. Hearings, government and 
scientific reports, and public opinion all seem to agree on one 
point: nonpoint, or diffuse, water pollution presents one of 
the nation's greatest remaining challenges. H.R. 961 responds 
by providing additional funding, flexibility with 
accountability, agency-wide coordination, and incentives for 
innovative, market-based approaches, while retaining the basic 
structure and framework of existing section 319 of the Clean 
Water Act. The Committee explicitly rejected proposals for 
broader revisions, placing greater command-and-control 
authority within EPA and NOAA.
    Subsection (a) modifies state assessment report 
requirements in section 319 of the Act.
    Subsection (b) includes various modifications to existing 
section 319(b), relating to contents, requirements, and 
mechanisms for each state program. Among other things, it 
requires each section 319 program to include management 
practices and measures to reduce pollutant loadings that may 
include voluntary and incentive-based programs, regulatory 
programs, enforceable policies and mechanisms, State management 
programs approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act, and other methods to manage nonpoint sources to 
the degree necessary to provide for reasonable further progress 
toward attaining water quality standards within 15 years of 
State program approval.
    The amendments throughout subsection (b) include several 
references to the goal of attaining water quality standards and 
making reasonable further progress towards attainment of water 
quality standards. One consistent theme runs throughout the 
section, however: specific and unrealistic deadlines should not 
be mandated from Washington, D.C. Instead, each state should 
tailor its program so that reasonable further progress can be 
made. A rigid 15 year deadline, particularly without interim 
goals and milestones, can be counterproductive and lead to 
needless litigation or prematurely imposed enforceable 
mechanisms. Therefore, the Committee does not intend this 
section to establish an absolute deadline of 15 years for 
attainment of water quality standards.
    For purposes of this section, reasonable progress toward 
water quality standards attainment may be demonstrated by a 
variety of measures and mechanisms. Adequacy of Federal funding 
is a factor in determining reasonable progress. The program 
also must include identification of goals and milestones for 
attaining water quality standards, including a projected date 
for attaining such standards as expeditiously as possible, but 
no later than 15 years from the date of program approval. 
Again, however, the intent of the Committee is that the 15 year 
date be an overall goal of each program. The real measure of 
success will be whether each state can demonstrate reasonable 
further progress on a periodic basis.
    In addition, subsection (b) adds a new section 319(b)(7) in 
recognition of agricultural programs. Compliance with approved 
whole farm or ranch natural resources management plans will 
constitute compliance with the State management program if 
certain conditions are met.
    In section 319(b)(7), the word ``program'' refers to the 
process of developing voluntary whole farm and ranch natural 
resource management plans that, when implemented, will achieve 
water quality results consistent with a State's nonpoint source 
management program. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 
the Governor and the Chief of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) or their designees should outline 
the scope of the voluntary natural resources management plans 
that will be developed for individual farms or ranches.
    The MOA should focus on the process and the anticipated 
water quality results in a given State. In order to facilitate 
the tailoring of plans for site-specific conditions and 
operations, specific conservation practices or management 
techniques for an individual farm or ranch would not be 
prescribed in the MOA. In developing the MOA, NRCS and the 
State should strive for maximum flexibility due to the 
variability of farm and ranch operations and resource 
conditions such as geology, soils, climate, crops and so forth 
that occur within the State. An individual farm and/or ranch 
plan should be approved and considered to be in compliance with 
the requirements of this section, as established in the MOA, 
for a period of no less than the five-year duration of the MOA. 
It is anticipated that practices specified in individual plans 
may be implemented in varying time frames within the duration 
of the plan, and implementation should not be interrupted by 
frequent plan revisions. The MOA must recognize the need to 
encourage farmers and ranchers to develop and implement whole 
farm and ranch plans by allowing reasonable implementation time 
periods, for example, time periods that provide for economic 
recovery of costs. The farmer may request a plan revision at 
any time and should request a revision to accommodate any 
significant operational changes or unforeseen technical 
problems within the farming/ranching enterprise.
    Subsections (c) and (d) include numerous provisions on 
submission, review, and approval of state management programs. 
In particular, subsection (d) authorizes EPA to review State 
programs and, in limited instances, to prepare and implement a 
program for a given State. This is just one of several examples 
of retaining accountability--i.e. safeguards to ensure 
enviromental progress.
    Subsection (e) expands opportunities for technical 
assistance to states under existing section 319 by making 
implementation, not just development, of programs eligible for 
assistance.
    Subsections (f) and (h) authorize funding for technical and 
financial assistance by EPA including grants for preparing and/
or implementing reports and programs. These are certainly some 
of the most significant provisions in the bill, in part, 
because they recognize the need for increased attention and 
resources for nonpoint source pollution. Subsection (f) 
increases the Federal cost share from 60% to 75% and requires 
EPA to establish an allotment formula for distribution to the 
States. The bill also expands eligible uses of funds. EPA is 
authorized to withhold grants to States that are not in 
compliance. Subsection (h) increases program funding levels $50 
million each year from $100 million for fiscal year 1996 to 
$300 million for FY2000.
    Subsections (g) and (h) recognize the importance of ground 
water protection by raising the existing cap on ground water/
nonpoint source grants that any one state may receive from 
$150,000 to $500,000 and by increasing the annual cap for the 
national nonpoint source program from $7.5 million/year to $25 
million/year.
    Subsection (i) modifies current section 319 provisions on 
consistency of other projects and programs with State 319 
programs. The bill requires a Memorandum of Understanding 
between a State and Federal agency that owns lands within the 
watershed covered by the nonpoint source program to coordinate 
nonpoint source control measures.
    Subsections (j) and (k) include various provisions on 
reports of the Administrator and set-asides for administrative 
personnel.
    Subsection (l) directs EPA to publish guidance on model 
management practices and measures for consideration by the 
States.
    The Guidance on Model Management Practices and Measures is 
a true ``guidance'' document, to be used by States at their 
discretion in developing State nonpoint source management 
programs. The measures and practices specified in this guidance 
can only be general in design, since specific measures and 
practices must be appropriately designed to meet the unique 
geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the area. For 
agricultural measures and practices, the guidance should 
appropriately defer to Local Field Office Technical Guides. The 
definition of Model Management Practices and Measures should 
also consider whether the measure or practice is economically 
achievable for an individual participant.
    Subsection (m) includes an unfunded mandate safeguard, 
i.e., compliance dates are delayed one year for each year 
Congress does not appropriate 100% of authorized funds, unless 
EPA and the State jointly certify that the amounts appropriated 
are sufficient to meet the requirements of this section. The 
Committee recognizes that adequate funding is crucial to the 
success of any nonpoint source program.
    Subsection (n) repeals section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990, but at the same time folds some of 
the successful aspects of the coastal zone management program 
into section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
    For example, sections 319 (a) and (b) are amended to 
require States to identify critical areas, taking into 
consideration the value of coastal areas. For coastal areas, 
each State program must include an identification of land uses 
that individually or cumulatively cause or contribute to 
significant degradation of those coastal waters not attaining 
or maintaining water quality standards and those coastal waters 
threatened by foreseeable increases in pollutant loadings. In 
addition, States must cooperate with coastal zone management 
agencies in developing reports and management programs under 
this section.
    Subsection (o), agricultural inputs, clarifies that land 
application of agricultural inputs, including livestock manure, 
is not a point source and is regulated only under section 319--
and not subject to citizen suits.
    Agriculture involves the purposeful disturbance of land 
surfaces, the application of crop nutrients, animal manures and 
protection products to augment and enhance natural processes in 
the production of food and natural fiber. While farmers and 
ranchers can manage these nonpoint source activities, they 
cannot be controlled in the same fashion as point source 
activities. Runoff from nonpoint source activities is largely 
the consequence of natural hydrologic and geologic occurrences 
beyond the control of farmers and ranchers. That is why 
Congress has chosen to address diffuse, nonpoint source 
activities like land application of livestock manure and 
agricultural inputs, in a separate nonpoint source section, 
with States responsible for determining how best to work with 
farmers and ranchers in managing nonpoint source runoff. This 
section clarifies and strengthens the statutory distinction 
with respect to these agricultural nonpoint source activities.
    Subsection (p) amends section 319 of the Act to include an 
overriding purpose: to assist states in addressing nonpoint 
sources of pollution where necessary to achieve the goals and 
requirements of the Act. The provision further recognizes that 
State nonpoint source programs need to be built upon a 
foundation that voluntary initiatives represent the approach 
most likely to succeed in achieving the objectives of the Act.

Section 320. National Estuary Program

    Section 320 of the bill amends section 320 of the Act to 
make a technical correction to the listing of priority 
estuaries in existing law and adds Charlotte Harbor, Florida, 
and Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, to the priority list. This 
section also authorizes $19 million a year for fiscal year 1996 
through 2000 and allows such funds to be used for grants for 
monitoring of implementation in addition to grants for the 
development of conservation and management plans.

Section 321. State watershed management programs

    Section 321 of the bill establishes in the Clean Water Act 
a comprehensive, new section on watershed management. 
Throughout the Committee's hearings--both this Congress and 
last--and in countless governmental and nongovernmental 
meetings, reports, and recommendations, there has been 
remarkable consensus on the need for a watershed-based, 
``hollistic'' approach to water pollution control. Section 321 
responds to this need by establishing in the Act an entirely 
voluntary mechanism for States to use and coordinate existing 
authorities and to experiment with new authorities (such as 
pollutant transfer pilot projects) to increase the focus on 
watersheds.
    The Committee recognizes that the ``watershed-based 
approach'' is not a new concept to the Clean Water Act. For 
example, many of the provisions in sections 208, 314, 319, and 
320 already explicitly or implicitly refer to or rely upon 
management principles that focus on watersheds. Section 321, 
however, will provide even greater focus by providing various 
incentives and removing potential obstacles.
    For example, some of the incentives include: (1) expanded 
eligibility of watershed planning and implementation activities 
for financial assistance; (2) increased flexibility for 
issuance of point source permits; (3) opportunities for 
pollutant transfers (trading); (4) multipurpose grants; and (5) 
additional planning set-asides.
    While section 321 is many things, it is not a new 
regulatory program or mechanism for EPA or states to expand 
regulatory authorities. Like section 319 and other sections in 
title III, new section 321 is intended to be a program for 
planning, managing, and coordinating. It does not include new 
regulatory powers for the control of pollution sources that 
could not be controlled under other Clean Water Act sections. 
Instead, it embodies the belief that States can generally 
achieve water quality standards most effectively and 
expeditiously at the local watershed level by coordinating 
these multiple authorities in concert with the active 
involvement and cooperation of ``stakeholders'' in that 
watershed, who are in the best position to identify problems 
and design and implement suitable solutions.
    Subsection (a) establishes a new section 321 in the Clean 
Water Act.
    A State may submit a watershed management program at any 
time, and expedited program approval is provided for if a 
program contains minimum elements on program structure, scope, 
watersheds covered, requirements, goals, and consistency with 
the nonpoint source and stormwater sections.
    A State is provided significant flexibility in establishing 
the scope of the program with respect to watersheds, pollutants 
and factors to be addressed. This allows a State to tailor 
program capabilities to water quality problems specific to the 
State, and reflects the extent of the State's resources and 
capabilities. To ensure local input, the State is to take into 
account all regional and local watershed management programs, 
and consider recommendations from units of local government and 
water suppliers and agencies.
    To encourage prioritization in use of the watershed 
approach and scarce resources, a State is required to take into 
consideration those waters where water quality is threatened or 
impaired or otherwise in need of special protection in 
identifying which watersheds will be addressed. Management 
units for multistate watersheds may be included if jointly 
designated by the States, and may include Federally owned or 
managed waters and associated lands.
    To facilitate flexibility in applying the watershed 
approach at the local level, a State may go beyond the goals 
and objectives of this Act and include State water quality 
standards, including site-specific standards in identifying 
goals to be pursued in each watershed. However, Federal 
requirements and authorities apply only to the stated goals and 
objectives of this Act. For purposes of this section, the term 
``site-specific'' is intended to clarify that a State may 
establish standards different from a statewide standard for a 
particular water body or section of a river or stream, to the 
extent deemed necessary and appropriate to reflect that site or 
area's unique water quality attributes. It is not intended to 
apply to a particular point or nonpoint source.
    A State may submit modifications for an approved program to 
the Administrator at any time, which shall remain in effect 
until or unless the Administrator determines the program no 
longer meets requirements. Each State with an approved program 
shall provide an annual summary status report to the 
Administrator. In an effort to reduce paperwork burdens, this 
report may also be used to satisfy reporting requirements under 
other sections of the Act. Responsible entities for multistate 
watersheds shall be jointly determined by the States involved.
    Approved State programs and specific watershed plans could 
receive funding under various existing CWA authorities. As an 
incentive for local watershed management, expanded eligibility 
for assistance is established for watershed management costs 
associated with activities such as analysis, standard setting, 
identification and coordination of projects, activities and 
institutional arrangements, training, and public participation.
    For a watershed already attaining water quality standards, 
a plan need only identify how standards will be maintained for 
approval by a State with an approved program. To help ensure 
that a local watershed plan will be compatible with State water 
quality obligations under this Act, additional conditions are 
established for watershed plans including impaired areas, 
including identification of problems and how standards will be 
met consistent with this Act's deadlines.
    A State with an approved program has the flexibility to 
deem approval of a local watershed plan, including interim 
milestones, to be in effect for up to 10 years.
    To assist States, the Administrator is required to issue 
guidance within one year on provisions that States may consider 
for inclusion in watershed programs and local plans. States and 
other interested parties are to be consulted in development of 
the guidance. This guidance is not an enforceable mechanism. 
States are not required to use the guidance, in whole or in 
part, as a condition of program or plan approval, so long as 
minimum requirements of this section are satisfied.
    This section establishes a pilot project under which a 
discharger or source may apply for approval to offset the 
impact of its discharge by arranging for another discharger or 
source to implement controls or measures through a pollution 
credits trading program established as part of a watershed 
plan. Arrangements could include payment of funds. If a State 
so chooses, this pilot project allows selective approval of 
pollutant trading within a watershed if appropriate safeguards 
are included. The Administrator shall facilitate the pilot 
project by allocating funds to pollution credits programs in 
selected watersheds throughout the country. A report is to be 
submitted to Congress on the results of this pilot program 
within 36 months of enactment.
    From a water quality perspective, trading is most feasible 
if it occurs within the context of an integrated watershed 
planning process to ensure that the net reduction occurs in the 
same receiving waters. Pollutant trading within a watershed can 
provide overall water quality progress more flexibly and cost-
effectively. Currently, some sources are expected to experience 
sharply increased costs, and even financial hardship, for the 
next increment of pollution discharge reduction in revised 
NPDES permits, in waters that remain impaired despite expensive 
efforts already undertaken to date. The same or greater 
reductions might be accomplished at a significantly lower cost 
through pollutant trading, particularly in those instances 
where more affordable best available technologies may have 
already been utilized to eliminate the majority of discharges 
in earlier staged reductions.
    A properly designed pollutant trading program can be a 
positive incentive for the development and implementation of 
local watershed plans. Effective development and implementation 
of a local watershed plan hinges upon willingness by all 
stakeholders to participate.
    Subsection (b) includes additional incentives for states to 
develop watershed programs.
    Specific incentives that benefit permitted point sources 
are provided to encourage watershed management. A permitted 
source that does not have a history of a significant 
noncompliance may be issued a discharge permit with a 
limitation that does not meet standards if the receiving water 
is located in a watershed with an approved plan that contains 
assurances that standards will be met by a specified date 
through the combined efforts of both point and nonpoint 
sources. Permit extensions in such a watershed are also 
permissible in order to synchronize permit terms.
    The Administrator may provide a multipurpose grant for a 
State's approved watershed program, combining funds available 
under different sections of this Act and applying terms that 
apply for more than one year. This is intended to reduce 
administrative burdens for both the State and the Agency and 
provide flexibility to a State in focusing on priority 
activities. A State may also reserve limited additional funds 
for development of local watershed plans if half is made 
available to local entities. This encourages a State to make 
more planning funds available to local entities.

Section 322. Stormwater management programs

    State Programs. Subsection (a) of the bill adds a new 
section 322 to the Act which replaces the current section 
402(p) stormwater permitting program with mandatory State 
stormwater management programs.
    Section 322 recognizes that stormwater discharges are more 
characteristic of nonpoint sources and are fundamentally 
different from point sources whose discharges are more readily 
predictable and controllable. To avoid the continued imposition 
of significant control costs and regulatory burdens that have 
resulted in little, if any, water quality improvement, the 
Committee has removed certain stormwater management from the 
permitting requirements of section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
    Rather than imposing a national permitting scheme, the bill 
directs States to assess State waters, determine what 
categories and subcategories of stormwater discharges should be 
subject to controls, and identify control measures to be taken 
by those categories and subcategories to allow attainment of 
applicable water quality standards. The intent of the Committee 
is to remove the costly requirements of the existing section 
402(p) stormwater management program that creates bureaucracy 
and red-tape unrelated to environmental benefits. The new 
State-run program will allow a State to target both waters 
adversely impacted by stormwater pollution and categories of 
dischargers, and then gives the State the broad authority and 
flexibility to control pollution from stormwater discharged by 
those categories.
    Purpose. Subsection (a) of the new section 322 identifies 
the purpose of the section, which is to help States develop 
cost-effective stormwater pollution controls in an expeditious 
manner to allow States to meet the goals and requirements of 
the Act no later than 15 years from the date of approval of a 
State stormwater management program.
    State Assessment Reports. Subsection (b) requires States to 
prepare an assessment report identifying those navigable waters 
that the State does not reasonably expect to attain or maintain 
applicable water quality standards or the goals and 
requirements of the Act, without controls on stormwater 
discharges to those waters. The State assessment report also 
must identify those categories and subcategories of dischargers 
that add significant pollution from stormwater discharges to 
the waters that the State identifies in the assessment report 
and that are a contributing cause of the State's determination 
that such waters will not attain or maintain water quality 
standards or the goals and requirements of the Act.
    The categories of discharges that are potentially subject 
to control are stormwater discharges from municipal storm 
sewers and industrial, commercial, oil, gas, mining, and 
construction activities. These categories include approximately 
7.7 million commercial and light industrial facilities and 
thousands of small municipalities that are Phase II dischargers 
potentially subject to permitting under section 402(p) as 
currently in effect. Under new section 322, States have the 
flexibility to exempt de minimis contributors of pollution 
(such as small businesses, small municipalities, and small 
construction sites) from regulation. The Committee does not 
believe that it is essential for every activity with stormwater 
runoff and every municipality to be included in the State's 
stormwater management program.
    The State assessment reports also must identify the process 
the State proposes to undertake to identify measures for 
controlling pollution from the categories and subcategories of 
stormwater discharges that will be subject to the State 
program.
    Finally, the State assessment report must identify and 
describe existing or proposed State, local, and if appropriate, 
industrial programs for controlling pollution from stormwater.
    The intent of this section is to allow each State to 
develop a program that is tailored to its needs. Accordingly, 
the bill allows States to target facilities and municipalities 
and to target receiving waters.
    The State must provide notice of and an opportunity for 
comment on the State assessment reports. However, the decisions 
made by the State that are discussed in the report, including 
identification of dischargers (both municipal and nonmunicipal) 
that add ``significant pollution'' to navigable waters and 
navigable waters that require protection under the State 
Stormwater Management Program are matters committed to the 
discretion of the State.
    The assessment report must be submitted to EPA for approval 
within 18 months of enactment and must be reviewed, revised and 
submitted to EPA for approval every 5 years thereafter.
    State Stormwater Management Programs. Subsection (c) 
requires each State to develop a State stormwater management 
program, in conjunction and cooperation with affected local 
governments, that will be implemented during the first five 
years after program approval. The elements of the State program 
are spelled out in paragraph (2).
    Model Management Practices and Measures. Paragraph (2)(A) 
requires States to identify model management practices and 
measures to reduce pollutant loadings from each category or 
subcategory of stormwater discharges targeted by the State for 
regulation. States may utilize such model management practices 
and measures identified by EPA in guidance issued pursuant to 
new section 322(l). The identification of model management 
practices and measures in a State program is not intended to 
preclude facilities from implementing stormwater pollution 
prevention plans that identify other effective measures for the 
control of stormwater pollution.
    Programs and Resources. Paragraph (2)(B) requires States to 
identify the programs and resources it has determined are 
necessary to provide for reasonable further progress toward and 
achievement of the goal of attaining water quality standards 
(that include stormwater criteria) by not later than 15 years 
from the date of program approval.
    Industrial, Commercial, Oil, Gas, and Mining Discharges. 
Paragraph (2)(C) requires States to develop a program for 
categories and subcategories of industrial, commercial, oil, 
gas, and mining activities that provide incentives to implement 
pollution prevention practices and eliminate the exposure of 
stormwater to pollutants.
    This section establishes a hierarchy of regulatory 
frameworks. For noncontract facilities, described below, the 
hierarchy begins with voluntary pollution prevention plans and 
proceeds, if the State determines it is necessary, to general 
permits and then site-specific permits. For contract 
facilities, also described below, the hierarchy begins with 
enforceable pollution prevention plans and proceeds to general 
and then site-specific permits as determined to be necessary by 
the State.
    Noncontract facilities. Facilities where stormwater has no 
contact with material handling equipment, heavy industrial 
machinery, raw materials, intermediate products, finished 
products, byproducts or waste products at the site of an 
industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining facility 
potentially subject to regulation under this section, are not 
subject to enforceable stormwater pollution controls. However, 
the State programs should encourage the use voluntary pollution 
prevention planning to control the introduction of pollutants 
to receiving waters from stormwater discharges. A facility 
where stormwater comes into incidental contact with buildings 
and motor vehicles only shall be considered a noncontact 
facility. Currently, under EPA's interpretation of section 
402(p), such noncontact facilities are not regulated.
    Pollution Prevention Plans. For facilities where stormwater 
does come into contact with such materials, each State program 
must require enforceable pollution prevention plans. The 
minimum requirements for the enforceable pollution prevention 
plans are set forth in subsection (d) and are more stringent 
than pollution prevention plans currently required under 
general stormwater permits. Such pollution prevention plans are 
self-implemented and self-certified, but must be kept available 
for State review. If, upon review, the State determines that 
the plan does not meet the requirements of subsection (d), the 
State may require the facility to amend its plan and may take 
enforceable action against the facility under section 309 of 
the Act.
    General Permits. A State program may propose to require 
general permits for categories and subcategories of stormwater 
discharges where the State finds, after providing notice and an 
opportunity for comment, that reasonable further progress 
towards achieving water quality standards (that contain 
stormwater criteria) in a particular receiving water cannot be 
made due to the presence of a pollutant or pollutants specified 
by the State imposes general permits on such categories and 
subcategories, despite the implementation of voluntary 
activities (if a non-contact is targeted) or enforceable 
pollution prevention plans (if a category where stormwater 
comes into contact with pollutants from facility materials is 
targeted). The bill does not set any minimum period of time for 
implementation of pollution prevention plans by a category or 
subcategory before a State may make such a finding. The State 
may make this finding at any point after implementation of 
pollution prevention plans that the State believes it has 
adequate data to determine that this control mechanism alone 
will not result in reasonable further progress toward achieving 
water quality standards.
    The State's identification of such categories and 
subcategories and pollutants is a matter committed to the 
discretion of the State. However, in the administrative 
proceeding provided under State law for the issuance of 
permits, a facility in a targeted category or subcategory shall 
have the opportunity to demonstrate that stormwater discharges 
from that facility are not contributing to a violation of a 
water quality standard established for designated uses of the 
receiving water and are not significantly contributing the 
pollutant or pollutants identified by the State. If the 
facility makes this demonstration, it shall not be subject to 
the proposed general permit. In accepting or rejecting any 
demonstration made by a facility under this subparagraph, the 
State shall apply the standards applicable to general permit 
decisions under State law. The State's decision to accept or 
reject the demonstration will be reviewable to the extent that 
general permits are reviewable under State law.
    Site-Specific Permits. A State program may propose to 
require site-specific permits for categories and subcategories 
of stormwater discharges, or individual facilities in such 
categories or subcategories, whether the State finds, after 
providing notice and an opportunity for comment, that 
reasonable further progress towards achieving water quality 
standards (that contain stormwater criteria) in a particular 
receiving water cannot be made, unless the State imposes such 
permits, due to the presence of a pollutant or pollutants 
specified by the State, despite the implementation of voluntary 
activities (if non-contact facilities are targeted), or 
enforceable pollution prevention plans and general permits (if 
facilities where stormwater comes into contact with pollutants 
from site materials are targeted). The bill does not set any 
minimum period of time for implementation of general permits by 
a category or subcategory, or an individual facility, before a 
State may make such a finding. The State may make this finding 
at any point after implementation of general permits that the 
State believes it has adequate data to determine that this 
control mechanism alone will not result in reasonable further 
progress toward achieving water quality standards.
    The State's identification of such categories and 
subcategories (or individual facilities) and pollutants is a 
matter committed to the discretion of the State. However, in 
the administrative proceeding provided under State law for the 
issuance of permits, individual facilities shall have the 
opportunity to demonstrate that stormwater discharges from that 
facility are not contributing to a violation of a water quality 
standard established for designated uses of the receiving water 
and are not significantly contributing the pollutant or 
pollutant identified by the State. If the State finds that the 
facility has met its burden and has made this demonstration, 
applying the standard applicable under State law for the 
issuance of site-specific permits, the facility shall not be 
subject to the proposed site-specific permit. The State's 
decision to accept or reject the demonstration will be 
reviewable to the same extent that site-specific permits are 
reviewable under State law.
    Small Business. For small businesses engaged in industrial, 
commercial, oil, gas or mining activities, States may not 
require general permits or site-specific permits unless the 
State finds that, without such permits, stormwater discharges 
from small businesses will have a significant adverse effect on 
water quality. The State's finding under this subparagraph is 
committed to the State's discretion. If the State makes this 
finding with respect to a category or subcategory of small 
business (or an individual business) such a category or 
subcategory (or individual business) shall be regulated in the 
same fashion as other industrial, commercial, oil, gas or 
mining activities. Paragraph (5) requires EPA to define small 
businesses for the purpose of this section.
    Municipal Discharges. Paragraph (2)(D) requires States to 
develop a program for the reduction of pollution from municipal 
stormwater discharges sufficient to allow the State to meet the 
goals of this section and the Act. The State's identification, 
of those municipalities that will be subject to the State 
stormwater management program is a matter committed to the 
discretion of the State. However, it is the intent of the 
Committee that States work closely with local governments to 
develop the municipal stormwater program.
    Construction Activities. Paragraph (2)(E) governs 
stormwater discharges from construction activities. The bill 
does not require States to regulate construction activities in 
the same fashion as industrial, commercial, oil, gas or mining 
activities generally. The Committee recognizes that for 
construction activities, many States already have stormwater 
runoff and/or erosion and sediment control requirements in 
place that are working to control stormwater runoff from 
construction activities through pollution prevention practices 
and measures. Accordingly, States must develop a program for 
construction activities that is consistent with current State 
and local requirements to avoid duplicative regulatory 
requirements.
    The program for construction activities also must take into 
account land area disturbed by the construction activities and 
should consider differences in soil conditions, project 
duration, location, topography, and vegetation when identifying 
management practices and measures.
    The program for construction activities also must focus on 
pollution prevention through model management practices and 
measures. States are encouraged to use voluntary programs and 
enforceable pollution prevention plans in lieu of a permitting 
framework to require implementation of pollution prevention 
management practices.
    The State may impose effluent limits or other numerical 
standards to control pollutants in stormwater discharges from 
construction activities only if the State finds, after 
providing notice and an opportunity for comment, that such 
standards are necessary to achieve water quality standards. 
This finding shall be reviewable in the context of any 
applicable permit appeal proceeding. Such review shall be in 
accordance with procedures and standards applicable to permit 
decisions under State law.
    States retain the flexibility to reduce (as well as 
increase) controls established for categories and subcategories 
of industrial, commercial, oil, gas, mining or construction 
activities based on the State findings and facility 
demonstrations provided for in this section. Thus, not only do 
facilities have an incentive to prevent stormwater pollution to 
avoid increased controls, they have the incentive to reduce any 
stormwater pollution that is the basis for a permitting 
requirement or an effluent limitation to work their way 
``back'' to enforceable pollution prevention planning with a 
goal of ``no contact'' (where economically and technologically 
feasible) and voluntary pollution prevention activities. Thus, 
the public and the environment benefit by a net reduction in 
discharges of identified pollution to waters and improved water 
quality and dischargers and States benefit by reduced 
administrative burdens.
    Bad Actor Provisions. Notwithstanding any other 
requirements of this section, a State may take any action it 
deems necessary to address stormwater discharges from bad 
actors. Accordingly, Paragraph (2)(F) requires State stormwater 
management programs to include a bad actor provision that 
specifies that programs for specific types of dischargers (and 
any hierarchy of controls specified in those programs) are 
superseded where the State identifies, after notice and an 
opportunity for a hearing, a discharger that has a history of 
stormwater noncompliance under the Clean Water Act, State law, 
or implementing regulations, permits, orders, or administrative 
actions, or poses an imminent threat to human health and the 
environment. The State stormwater management program need not 
spell out what specific actions the State will take against 
particular bad actors.
    The identification of a discharger that has a history of 
stormwater noncompliance or poses an imminent threat shall be 
subject to the same standards and procedures applicable to 
formal adjudications under the State law governing 
administrative procedure. The discharger's right to review 
shall be dependent on State administrative law and whatever due 
process State law requires for the actions the State proposes 
to take against the bad actor.
    In identifying bad actors, the State may rely on a 
discharger's failure to comply with stormwater requirements in 
existence prior to the date of enactment of this bill. However, 
a discharger subject to section 402(p)(6) (a Phase II 
discharger) is not a bad actor solely by reason of a failure to 
obtain or apply for a stormwater discharge permit. In addition, 
a discharger subject to section 402(p)(4) (a Phase I 
discharger) is not a bad actor solely by reason of a failure to 
obtain a stormwater discharge permit if the discharger 
submitted a complete stormwater permit application as required 
under section 402(p) (including those facilities that were part 
of an approved group stormwater permit application) prior to 
the date of enactment of this bill in a timely fashion.
    Schedule. Under Paragraph (2)(G), each State stormwater 
management program must include a schedule for making 
reasonable progress toward attainment of the goal of meeting 
water quality standards (which contain stormwater criteria) 
within 15 years of the date of program approval. The goal of 
the program is meeting water quality standards. However, the 
state programs are developed as five-year implementation plans. 
The State program must be updated and revised after each five-
year internal. The Committee does not expect that water quality 
standards will be met in all waters impacted by stormwater 
discharges in the first five years of program implementation. 
However, a State program must make reasonable further progress 
toward the goal of attaining water quality standards.
    Reasonable further progress may be shown by any combination 
of improvements in water quality, documented implementation of 
voluntary stormwater discharge control measures, or adoption of 
enforcement stormwater discharge control measure.
    Certification of Adequate Authority. Under Paragraph 
(2)(H), a State must certify that it has adequate authority to 
implement the stormwater management program, or list additional 
authorities that will be necessary to implement the program and 
a commitment to seek such additional authorities as 
expectiously as possible. It is the intent of the Committee 
that States be able to use existing authorities to the maximum 
extend possible under State law, including existing permitting 
authorities, to implement this program.
    Identification of Federal Financial Assistance Programs. 
Paragraph (2)(I) requires a State to identify Federal financial 
assistance programs and Federal development projects that the 
State will review for their effect on water quality and for 
consistency with the State's stormwater management program.
    Monitoring. Paragraph (2)(J) requires States to describe 
the monitoring of navigable waters that will be carried out for 
the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of the State 
program.
    Identification of Certain Inconsistent Federal Activities. 
Paragraph (2)(K) requires States to identify activities on 
Federal lands that are inconsistent with the State management 
program.
    Identification of Goals and Milestones. Paragraph (2)(L) 
requires the State to identify goals and milestones for 
achieving progress toward the attainment of water quality 
standards (that include stormwater criteria), including a 
projected date for attainment that cannot be later than 15 
years from the date of program approval.
    Utilization of Local and Private Experts. Paragraph (3) 
requires a State to involve local public and private agencies 
and organizations with expertise in stormwater management when 
developing and implementing the State stormwater management 
program. Private organizations include industrial facilities 
and related trade associations, including those whose expertise 
in stormwater management was developed from participation in 
EPA's group stormwater permit application process.
    Development on a Watershed Basis. Paragraph (4) requires 
States to develop and implement State stormwater management 
programs on a watershed basis to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    Regulations Defining Small Businesses. Paragraph (5) 
requires EPA to issue regulations defining small businesses for 
the purposes of this section. In defining small businesses, the 
Committee expects EPA to consult with the Small Business 
Administration Office of Advocacy and to examine the definition 
of small business used in other environmental statutes.
    Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans. Subsection (d) sets 
forth the requirements for the stormwater pollution prevention 
plans that must be implemented by industrial, commercial, oil, 
gas, and mining facilities under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii). If 
equivalent, State or local erosion control plans, or spill 
prevention, control and countermeasure plans may qualify under 
this subsection as a stormwater pollution prevention plan.
    A facility that is complying with a stormwater pollution 
prevention plan meeting the requirements of this subsection 
shall not be subject to permits, mandatory model management 
practices and measures, analytical monitoring, effluent 
limitations or other numerical standards under section 
322(c)(2)(C)(ii).
    Administrative Provisions. Subsection (e) of new section 
322 includes administrative provisions.
    Cooperation Requirement. Subsection (e)(1) requires a State 
to develop both the State assessment report and the State 
stormwater implementation plan in cooperation with local, 
substate, regional, and interstate entities which are 
responsible for implementing a stormwater management program.
    Time Period for Submission of Management Programs. 
Subsection (e)(2) requires States to initially submit their 
stormwater management programs to EPA within 30 months of the 
date that EPA issues its guidance on model stormwater 
management practices and measures (as required under subsection 
(1) of new section 322). Every five years, States must resubmit 
their program to EPA along with a demonstration of reasonable 
further progress toward the goal of attaining water quality 
standards (that contain stormwater criteria) and a 
documentation of the degree to which the State has achieved the 
interim goals and milestones contained in the previous program 
submission. The State's demonstration shall take into account 
the adequacy of Federal funding under this section.
    Transition. Subsection (e)(3) identifies the rules that 
apply during the period of time from enactment of this section 
to the date a State program is approved. Notwithstanding the 
repeal of section 402(p), section 402(p) remains in effect 
during the transition period only as authority for permits and 
enforcement measures as provided for in section 322. All 
permits issued pursuant to section 402(p) remain in effect, 
except as provided for in this subsection, until superseded by 
an approved State stormwater management program. Stormwater 
dischargers operating under permit applications because no 
permit has yet been issued, shall continue to operate under the 
terms and conditions in the permit description that accompanies 
the application, unless the permitting authority disapproves 
the application.
    All conditions of those permits and permit applications, 
including requirements for the payment of fees, also remain in 
effect unless and until such conditions are modified by the 
State. However, prior to the effective date of the State 
stormwater management program, a stormwater discharger may 
request the State or EPA, as applicable, to modify its 
stormwater permit. For example, the discharger may seek 
approval to have effluent limitations or numerical standards 
removed from the permit.
    Notwithstanding the repeal of section 402(p), during the 
transition period after the date of enactment of the bill and 
before the effective date of a State stormwater management 
program, States shall retain any authority conferred by section 
402(p) to enforce the permitting requirements that section 
imposed on Phase I stormwater dischargers. However, any 
stormwater discharger (both municipal and nonmunicipal) that is 
complying with a stormwater discharge permit or application 
continued in effect under this section shall not be subject to 
citizen suits under section 505.
    Any new nonmunicipal facility that begins operation during 
this transition period that would have been a Phase I facility 
if it had commenced operation prior to the date of enactment of 
this Act, shall be subject to any applicable general permit 
that covers its type of operations. To be in compliance with 
this section, such facilities are required to notify the State 
or Administrator that the facility intends to be covered by and 
shall comply with such permit.
    If there is no general permit applicable to the new 
nonmunicipal facility, the State may impose enforceable 
stormwater management measures under this section, State 
authorities, or section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act as in 
effect prior to the date of enactment of this Act, if the State 
finds that the stormwater discharge is likely to impose an 
imminent threat to human health and the environment or to pose 
a significant impairment of water quality standards. Such a 
finding is committed to the discretion of the State.
    In recognition of the valuable information such dischargers 
have collected, the considerable resources expended upon such 
applications, the technical sophistication and relatively high 
compliance rates of such dischargers, an industrial facility 
that is included in a part 1 group stormwater permit 
application approved by EPA under 40 C.F.R. section 
122.26(c)(2), may choose to immediately implement a stormwater 
pollution prevention plan consistent with subsection (d) of new 
section 322 in lieu of continued operation under existing 
permits. This option is available during the transition period 
only. To exercise this option, the facility must certify to the 
State, or EPA as appropriate, that it is operating under 
stormwater pollution prevention plan that is consistent with 
subsection (d). Upon such certification, the facility shall no 
longer be subject to its existing permit. However, failure to 
implement and comply with a stormwater pollution prevention 
plan that is consistent with subsection (d) shall be a 
violation of the Act subject to enforcement under section 309 
and citizen suits under section 505.
    Stormwater discharges for which permits were required under 
section 402 prior to the 1987 amendments (which added section 
402(p) to the Act) are not addressed under new section 322. 
Such stormwater discharges remain point source discharges 
subject to section 402.
    Notwithstanding the fact that permits under section 402(p) 
are continued in effect during the transition period, the 
antibacksliding provisions of section 402(o) shall not apply to 
any modifications of permits that may occur during the period 
of time between the date of enactment of this Act and the 
effective date of a State stormwater management program. Of 
course, section 402(o) has no application to a State stormwater 
management program, when implemented.
    Approval or Disapproval of Reports or Management Programs. 
Subsection (f) provides EPA with the authority to approve or 
disapprove a State assessment report or a State stormwater 
management program (or portion of a management program). If EPA 
does not disapprove a report or program within 180 days of 
submission, the report or program shall be deemed to be 
approved.
    To disapprove a proposed State stormwater management 
program (or a portion of a program), EPA must determine, after 
providing notice and an opportunity for comment, that (1) the 
proposed program does not contain the elements required by this 
section, (2) the proposed program will not satisfy the goals 
and requirements of the Act, (3) the State does not have 
adequate authority or resources to implement the program (or 
portion being disapproved), or (4) the practices and measures 
that the State proposes to implement will not result in 
reasonable further progress toward the attainment of water 
quality standards.
    To disapprove a program or portion of a program, EPA also 
must notify the State within six months of the date the State 
submitted the program to EPA of the revisions or modifications 
necessary for approval. The State then shall have an additional 
six months from date of notification of disapproval to revise 
and resubmit its program and EPA shall have an additional three 
months from the date of receipt of the revised program to 
approve or disapprove it.
    When reviewing a State stormwater management program, EPA 
shall not condition approval of a State's program unless it 
makes the determinations provided for in subsection (f)(2).
    Federal Takeover of State Programs. If a State does not 
submit a State assessment report (which under subsection (b) 
must be submitted within 18 months from the date of enactment) 
by the date which a State stormwater management program must be 
submitted to EPA, EPA must prepare an assessment report for the 
State.
    If a State does not submit a stormwater management program, 
or if EPA disapproves the proposed State program, EPA shall 
prepare and implement a stormwater management program for the 
State.
    If, upon reviewing a program submitted for renewal five 
years after the date of initial program approval, EPA 
determines (after taking into account the level of funding 
provided compared to the level authorized) that the State has 
not demonstrated reasonable further progress toward attainment 
of water quality standards, the State shall have 12 months to 
revise its program in a manner sufficient to achieve water 
quality standards within 15 years from the date of initial 
program approval. If the State fails to revise its program or 
EPA disapproves the revision, EPA shall prepare and implement a 
stormwater management program for the State. EPA's disapproval 
of the revision also shall be subject to notice and comment.
    As an alternative to Federal takeover of a State stormwater 
management program under this subsection, EPA and a State may 
approve a program submitted by a unit of general purpose local 
government or a local public agency or organization. If the 
State agrees, a local public agency or organization may seek 
technical assistance from EPA to develop such a program, which 
may be applicable to subsections of the State that EPA 
determines are of sufficient geographic size to allow 
implementation of a separate stormwater management program.
    If EPA or a local agency implements a State stormwater 
management program, or a portion of a State program, that 
agency shall have the responsibilities and authorities for 
program implementation placed upon or provided to the States by 
the new section 322 and shall comply with the requirements 
imposed on States under this section.
    Interstate Management Conference. Under subsection (g) a 
State may ask EPA to convene an interstate management 
conference if a portion of the State's navigable waters are not 
meeting water quality standards or the goals or requirements of 
the Clean Water Act because of pollution from stormwater 
discharges that originate in another State. If EPA determines 
that the State has correctly identified stormwater discharges 
originating in another State as the source of its water quality 
problem, EPA shall notify the affected States and convene an 
interstate management conference within 180 days of such 
notification.
    The purpose of the management conference is to develop an 
agreement among the affected States relating to pollution from 
stormwater discharges. If the States reach agreement, their 
State stormwater management programs shall be revised to 
reflect that agreement.
    Grants for Stormwater Research. For the purpose of 
determining the most cost-effective and technologically 
feasible means of addressing pollution from stormwater 
discharges and to develop stormwater criteria, subsection (h) 
authorizes $20 million annually to be awarded by EPA for grants 
for State and local demonstration projects and research to (1) 
identify adverse impact of stormwater, (2) identify pollutants 
in stormwater that have an adverse impact, and (3) test 
innovative approaches to address the impacts of source controls 
and model management practices and measures.
    For each year that Congress fails to appropriate the full 
$20 million authorized under this subsection, any deadlines 
established in a State program for compliance with water 
quality standards shall be postponed by one year.
    Development of Stormwater Criteria. Subsection (i) requires 
EPA to develop stormwater criteria as an element of water 
quality standards established for designated uses of navigable 
waters by December 31, 2008. The stormwater criteria need not 
be numeric criteria. The criteria may include performance 
standards, guidelines, guidance, and model management practices 
and measures and treatment requirements. In addition, in 
developing such criteria, EPA should consider the importance of 
land-based transportation developments to national defense, 
Postal Service operations and interstate commerce.
    Collection of Information. Subsection (j) requires EPA to 
collect and make publicly available information pertaining to 
model management practice and measures and implementation 
methods.
    Reports of EPA. Subsection (k) requires EPA to submit a 
biennial report to Congress on activities and programs 
implemented under section 322 and progress made in reducing 
pollution in navigable waters from stormwater discharges.
    Guidance on Model Stormwater Management Practices and 
Measures. Subsection (l) requires EPA to publish guidance on 
model stormwater management practices and measures. EPA's 
guidance must consider the fact that a State may choose to 
integrate its stormwater management program with its section 
319 nonpoint source management program.
    Enforcement. Subsection (m) specifies that State stormwater 
management programs are federally enforceable under sections 
309 and 505 of the Clean Water Act.
    Entry and Inspection. Subsection (n) specifies that a State 
has the right to enter and inspect any property at which there 
is a stormwater discharge or at which records required to be 
maintained under a State stormwater management program and 
located.
    Stormwater Discharges Regulated Under a Watershed Program. 
A State that chooses to develop a watershed program under 
section 321 of the Act need not develop and implement a State 
stormwater management program for those stormwater discharges 
that are addressed under the State watershed program, which 
shall be deemed to be the State stormwater management program 
with respect to such discharges. However, subsection (o) 
specifies that the State's regulation of stormwater discharges 
under section 321 must be consistent with this section.
    Consistency does not require duplication of a section 322 
program within a section 321 program. However, if a State 
chooses to use the authority provided under section 322 to 
require a permit on a stormwater discharge in the context of a 
section 321 watershed program (which does not give States any 
authority to require permits for nonpoint sources of 
pollution), the State must make the findings and utilize the 
administrative procedures provided for under section 322. In 
addition, consistent with this section, a State may not under 
section 321 require compliance with numerical standards or 
limitations based on water quality standards until such 
standards incorporate stormwater criteria.
    Mineral Exploration and Mining Sites. Subsection (p) 
clarifies how stormwater discharges from mineral exploration 
and mining sites are to be regulated following the date of 
enactment.
    Stormwater discharges from mineral exploration sites are to 
be regulated in the same manner as stormwater discharges from 
construction activities, consistent with current law. Mineral 
exploration activities are generally of short duration and 
affect only a limited area where core drilling or bulk sampling 
is conducted. For exploration activities at inactive or 
abandoned mine sites, the operator's responsibility for control 
of stormwater is limited to the area disturbed by the 
exploration activity in order to provide an incentive for 
exploring such sites in historically mined areas without 
incurring liability for the ground not disturbed by the 
exploration operation.
    Stormwater discharges from ore mining and dressing sites 
that are commingled with mine drainage and process wastewater 
are regulated as point source discharges under section 402, and 
not as stormwater discharges under section 322.
    Stormwater discharges from abandoned mined lands are to be 
regulated under section 319, unless the State determines, in 
its sole discretion, that regulation under section 322 is 
necessary to make reasonable further progress toward achieving 
water quality standards. However, due to the additional 
remediation authorities and resources available under the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, abandoned mined 
lands subject to that Act shall be subject to section 319 only.
    All other stormwater discharges from mining activities are 
regulated under section 322.
    Section 322(b) of the bill repeals the limitation on 
permits for stormwater from agricultural return flows and oil, 
gas and operations under section 402(l). By repealing section 
402(p) and the exemption in section 402(l), the Committee does 
not intend to change the Clean Water Act's current approach to 
agricultural stormwater runoff from cropland, pasture, 
rangelands and other agricultural areas. Diffuse agricultural 
runoff is addressed under section 319 and not the newly 
established section 322; stormwater runoff from oil and gas 
operations is regulated under new section 322; and stormwater 
runoff from mining operations is regulated as specified in new 
section 322(p), as discussed above.
    Section 322(c) of the bill repeals section 402(p) of the 
Clean Water Act. Notwithstanding this repeal, authorities and 
requirements under section 402(p) remain in effect as provided 
for in this section until such time as a State stormwater 
management program is approved.
    Section 322(d) of the bill defines the terms stormwater and 
stormwater discharge and amends the definition of point source.
    Stormwater is defined as runoff from rain, snow melt, or 
any other precipitation-generated surface runoff.
    Stormwater discharge is defined as a discharge from any 
conveyance used for collecting and conveying stormwater to 
navigable waters and which is associated with a municipal storm 
sewer or industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining activity. 
A conveyance shall include any ditch or channel formed by the 
runoff and is not limited to artificially constructed 
conveyances.
    Stormwater discharges are excluded from the definition of 
point source.

Section 323. Risk assessment and disclosure requirements

    Section 323 of the bill adds a new section 323 to the Act. 
This section is presented in two parts. First, the subsections 
of section 323 are briefly summarized in the order they appear 
in the bill. Second, the Committee's views regarding the 
intended effect of section 323 are described. Although this 
discussion focuses on the responsibilities placed on the 
Administrator of EPA, these responsibilities also generally 
apply to relevant activities performed by the Secretary of the 
Army.
    Subsection (a) requires the Administrator of EPA to develop 
and publish a risk assessment before issuing any standard, 
effluent limitation, water quality criterion, water quality 
based requirement, or other regulatory requirement that is not 
a permit or a purely procedural requirement, and any guidance 
that, if a rule, would result in costs of $25 million or more 
per year.
    Subsection (b) delineates the minimum contents of risk 
assessments. Risk assessments must identify and discuss data, 
assumptions, risk to specific populations or natural resources, 
and uncertainty.
    Subsection (c) provides for the Administrator of EPA, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to issue guidance 
for conducting risk assessments covered under this section. The 
guidance shall be issued within 180 days of enactment.
    Subsection (d) requires that EPA provide an explicit and 
practical quantitative description of any margin of safety 
relative to an unbiased estimate of the risk being addressed. 
In the past, margins of safety have been adopted in response to 
legislative requirements and at the discretion of the Agency.
    Subsection (e) allows EPA to exempt from the requirements 
of this section, regulations that would result in costs of less 
than $25 million or more per year.
    Subsection (f) establishes an effective date for these 
requirements as one year following the date of enactment of 
this section.
    Under subsection (g) EPA must conduct risk assessments for 
regulatory requirements and guidance issued after February 15, 
1995, that would result in costs of $100 million or more per 
year. Such reviews must be completed within 18 months of 
enactment of this section. The Committee notes that this 
provision and a similar provision under section 324 (subsection 
324(f)(1)(B)) has, unfortunately, been widely mischaracterized 
and that these mischaracterizations have caused unnecessary 
confusion.\1\ Thus far only one requirement, the Great Lakes 
Initiative issued in March 1995, would need to be reviewed 
under this subsection. Further, since rules costing $100 
million or more are already required to be evaluated by EPA and 
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866, the Committee expects that the retroactive review 
required by sections 323 and 324 will place little or no 
additional burden on EPA, assuming EPA has complied with the 
Executive Order.
    \1\ For instance, the retroactive coverage of section 324 has been 
described as repealing ``23 years of existing major Clean Water Act 
standards by requiring extensive cost-benefit and risk assessment 
reviews for all major existing standards within an impossible deadline 
of 18 months.'' (Letter to Congress from Jay Hair of the National 
Wildlife Federation dated April 3, 1995.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overall, the Committee intends that section 323 be 
consistent with the general risk assessment provisions of H.R. 
1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995, which 
passed the House of Representatives on February 28, 1995 by a 
vote of 286 to 141. Section 323 tailors the requirements of 
H.R. 1022 to the Clean Water Act.
    Section 323 sets out minimum requirements for risk 
assessments that are performed in support of significant 
regulations and guidance. The thrust of these requirements is 
to fundamentally change the way EPA presents the results of 
risk assessments to decision makers. Three aspects of this 
section will lead to this change, each of which is described 
below.
    First, the requirements of subsection 323(b) will ensure 
that the risk assessments reflect sound science. As Mary Jo 
Garries, Chief of Standards and Certification for Maryland's 
Department of the Environment recently noted, ``Too often * * * 
in the rush to meet public demand for water quality protection, 
standards are hastily and imperfectly derived. The 
imperfections are frequently the result of inadequate science, 
which can take many forms.'' Specific requirements under 
sections 323(b) (1), (3), and (4) will require federal risk 
assessors to identify and use all relevant and readily 
obtainable scientific data and justify the selection of 
significant assumptions, inferences or models that could 
significantly change the findings of the risk assessment.
    Second, section 323(b) will require EPA to produce best 
estimates (or similar unbiased descriptions) of the risk to be 
regulated. The Committee expects these estimates will be a 
principal product of risk assessments. Currently, EPA does not 
provide best estimates of the reduction in health and 
environmental risks a proposed regulation will achieve. 
Further, EPA typically does not describe the margin of safety a 
proposed standard incorporates. Both of these problems are 
caused, at least in part, by embedded and often hidden 
conservation assumptions in risk assessments. This results in 
estimates that reflect a degree of risk that is more serious 
than an unbiased estimate would indicate. For instance, EPA 
risk assessments for dioxin exceed those adopted by other 
governments by a factor of a thousand and exceed independently 
generated ``most likely estimates'' by a factor of 5,000.
    The problems this presents for decision makers, including 
State policymakers who must use EPA risk assessments to set 
water quality standards, are significant. As a Department of 
Energy study concluded last year, ``By design, many science 
policy decisions lead to risk assessment results that are more 
likely to overstate than to understate risks'' and, 
unfortunately:

        Risk assessors often fail to emphasize the existence 
        and extent of science policy in risk assessment. Where 
        the role of science policy is not explicitly explained, 
        risk estimates may be erroneously communicated to 
        policy makers, risk managers, the media, and the public 
        as uncontrovered fact. * * * Risk assessors should 
        ensure that such miscommunication does not occur.\2\
    \2\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``Choices in Risk Assessment: The 
Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process,'' 
Washington, DC, 1994, p. 241 and 244.

    The absence of best estimates further complicates 
policymaking in instances where risk assessments are used in 
conjunction with information on economic effects in making 
regulatory decisions (as opposed to using risk assessments to 
set health-based standards). EPA's current risk assessment 
process forces EPA decision makers to compare indeterminately 
conservative estimates of risk reduction against best estimates 
of compliance costs. Because the level of conservatism embodied 
in risk estimates may vary by more than a factor of ten, this 
necessarily warps the intent of policymakers who may otherwise 
believe they are making consistent and rational decisions 
regarding the expenditure of resources to protect public health 
and the environment.
    A more logical structure for assessing risks in pursuit of 
health and environmental protection is to produce a best 
estimate (or similar unbiased characterization) of the risk 
along with a description of the uncertainty of the estimate and 
then make an explicit and deliberate policy decision regarding 
the margin of safety that is desirable. A margin of safety may 
be necessary in order to protect certain specific populations 
or subpopulations that are more sensitive to harm than the 
population or ecosystem in general or in order to take into 
account key uncertainties in the risk assessment, or because it 
is required by statute. Defining an explicit margin of safety 
is precisely the type of process engineers use in designing 
dams, bridges, or other structures whose failure could result 
in a significant loss of life or environmental damage.
    Sections 323(b) (5) and (6) and subsection 323(d) address 
these problems. They will require EPA to provide best estimates 
(or other unbiased descriptions) of the risk being assessed, 
describe the uncertainty inherent in these estimates and 
explicitly identify and describe margins of safety adopted by 
the Agency. It is important to note that the best estimate (or 
other unbiased estimation) must include a description of the 
specific populations or natural resources the best estimate is 
based on. For instance, the prevalence and variability of the 
populations used could be critical to interpreting such an 
estimate.
    The Committee recognizes that in order to meet these 
requirements EPA will have to attempt to separate questions of 
science from questions of policy. This is intentional. In 1983 
the National Academy of Science recommended that:

        regulatory agencies take steps to establish and 
        maintain a clear conceptual distinction between 
        assessment of risks and consideration of risk 
        management alternatives; that is, the scientific 
        findings and policy judgements embodied in risk 
        assessments should be explicitly distinguished from the 
        political, economic, and technical considerations that 
        influence the design and choice of regulatory 
        strategies.\3\
    \3\ National Research Council, ``Risk Assessment in the Federal 
Government: Managing the Process'' (also known as the ``Red Book''). 
National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1983, p. 7.

    However, the Committee also recognizes that policy and 
scientific determinations are often intertwined an can be 
difficult to segregate. These provisions of section 323 are 
intended to separate policy and scientific findings as much as 
is practical and require risk assessors to explicitly identify 
and describe policy decisions whenever they are made.
    The third change section 323 invokes is the greater use of 
risk assessment results in setting EPA priorities. Subsection 
323(b)(7) would require EPA to compare the nature and extent of 
a risk to other risks to human health and the environment. This 
reflects the importance of placing risk reductions in context 
and forcing some evaluation of whether resources being directed 
at the proposed risk reduction may be inadequate or may be 
better directed at other more important priorities.
    Among its several uses, the use of risk assessment as a 
priority setting device offers the greatest opportunity for 
benefiting public health and the environment. Comparative risk 
can indicate where a reallocation of resources may result in 
greater environmental benefits at no increased cost to society. 
The Committee is concerned at the lack of prioritization that 
takes place within the water program and across EPA. Numerous 
bipartisan groups and experts including EPA's Science Advisory 
Board, the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and 
Government, the Environmental Working Group, former EPA 
Administrator William Reilly, and Supreme Court Justice Stephen 
Breyer have recommended that EPA's planning and budgeting 
process needs to reflect risk-based priorities.
    The Committee expects that section 323 requirements for 
producing unbiased risk estimates and comparisons to other 
risks, along with establishing consistent guidelines for risk 
assessments, will make it easier to deliberately set priorities 
among water related regulatory activities, and compare these 
activities to other priorities outside of the water program. 
Such information will help future policymakers, including this 
Committee, determine how laws, regulations, and budgets should 
be changed to improve federal environmental programs.

Section 324. Benefit and cost criterion

    Section 324 of the bill adds a new section 324 to the Act. 
This new section is presented in two parts. First, subsections 
of section 324 are briefly summarized. Following this, the 
Committee's views regarding the intended effect of this section 
are presented. Although the discussion of section 324 focuses 
on the responsibilities placed on the Administrator of EPA, 
they also apply to relevant activities performed by the 
Secretary of the Army.
    Subsection (a) requires the Administrator of EPA to certify 
that new regulations (and new guidance that, if issued as a 
rule, would result in an annual increase in costs of $25 
million or more per year) maximize net benefits to society. The 
requirement to maximize net benefits supplements and, to the 
extent there is a conflict, supersedes decision criteria 
otherwise applicable under the Clean Water Act, except that the 
resulting regulatory requirement or guidance must be 
economically achievable.
    Subsection (b) directs EPA to issue guidance for conducting 
benefit-cost analyses within 180 days of enactment. The 
guidance shall include procedures for identifying policy 
alternatives and methods for estimating incremental benefits 
and costs.
    Subsection (c) exempts from the requirements of this 
section permits, purely procedural requirements, water quality 
criteria, and water quality based standards.
    Subsection (d) allows the Administrator of EPA the 
discretion to exempt from the requirements of this section any 
regulations that would result in costs of less than $25 million 
per year.
    Subsection (e) sets out the general effective date of 
section 324 as one year from the date of enactment.
    Subsection (f) requires EPA to review, using the criterion 
of this section, any regulatory requirements and guidance 
issued after February 15, 1995, if such regulations or guidance 
would result in costs of $100 million or more per year. As 
mentioned above, the effect of this requirement may need some 
clarification (see the summary of subsection 323(g) above).
    Subsection (g) directs EPA to perform a study within 5 
years of enactment regarding the precision and accuracy of 
benefit and cost estimates developed to comply with this 
section.
    Overall, the Committee intends that section 324 be 
consistent with the benefit-cost provisions of H.R. 1022, the 
Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 which passed the 
House of Representatives on February 28, 1995, by a vote of 286 
to 141. Section 324 tailors these requirements to the Clean 
Water Act resulting in some important differences which are 
described below. None of these differences are intended to 
conflict with the requirements of H.R. 1022 but, rather, should 
supplement or complement the benefit-cost requirements of H.R. 
1022.
    As noted earlier in this report, since 1972 Clean Water Act 
regulations, and technology-based standards in particular, have 
resulted in significant improvements in the nation's water 
quality. For instance, the United States Geological Survey 
recently noted that the concentrations in fish of three 
important toxic elements (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) decreased 
by more than 50 percent nationwide from 1976 to 1986.\4\ 
Nonetheless, there is evidence that the improvement in water 
quality has come at an unnecessarily high cost and the 
efficiency of Clean Water Act requirements will simply become 
increasingly worse.
    \4\ USGS, ``National Water Summary 1990-91, 1993, p. 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A number of independent sources have recommended that 
future Clean Water Act regulations need to reflect a better 
balance between benefits and costs to society. Indeed, the 
limited data available indicate current regulations are 
extremely inefficient. One estimate placed the annual costs of 
compliance with Clean Water Act requirements in the mid-1980s 
at approximately $28 billion, while the benefits achieved over 
the same time period were approximately half this ($14 
billion).\5\ Further, a recent analysis indicates that under 
existing provisions of the Clean Water Act, future regulations 
may be even less cost-effective, resulting in costs that will 
outweigh benefits by as much as four to one.\6\
    \5\ See Freeman, A. M., Water Pollution Policy, in ``Policies for 
Environmental Protection,'' edited by Paul Portney, pp. 122-127, 
Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 1990.
    \6\ Lyon, Randolph and Scott Farrow, ``An Economic Analysis of 
Clean Water Issues'', ``Water Resources Research,'' January 1995, pp. 
213-223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The purpose of section 324 is to ensure that future 
regulations reflect a rational and coherent allocation of 
society's resources. Over twenty years ago Bill Ruckelshaus, 
then Administrator of EPA, argued against the adoption of 
technology-based limits. He testified before this Committee: 
``Effluent limitations are a means for achievement. They should 
not become an end unto themselves, nor should they be defined 
in statutory law solely in terms of the technology needed to 
achieve them.'' He further stated:

          There must be a rational, sober evaluation of 
        alternatives because we are always dealing with finite 
        resources. For instance, the extraordinary costs which 
        may be necessary to take the last five percent of 
        pollutants from a specific effluent in a specific river 
        basin may have no reasonable relationship to the 
        benefits to be derived. Without a consideration of the 
        nature and use of the receiving water, and the costs to 
        society, we may be wasting resources which could be 
        more effectively used to clean the air, dispose of 
        solid wastes, or effectively address water pollution 
        control in another body of water. As you well know, the 
        alternative uses of finite resources are infinite. 
        (Testimony of William Ruckelshaus before the Committee 
        on Public Works, December 7, 1971.)

    On the same day, Russell Train, then the Chairman of the 
Council on Environmental Quality, predicted that:

          If we insist that the public pay--through tax 
        revenues and increased prices for manufactured goods--
        many billions of dollars for water cleanup beyond the 
        point where added benefits can be demonstrated or even 
        assumed, I believe we will hurt the environmental cause 
        in two ways: First, the public legitimately will 
        question our wisdom on this and other environmental 
        matters and perhaps feel that the measures needed to 
        deal with environmental problems are being exaggerated. 
        Second, the imposition of enormous incremental costs 
        unsupported by water quality benefits attained will 
        divert an inordinate amount of our resources from other 
        environmental priorities, where they could be more 
        effectively utilized. (Testimony of Russell Train 
        before the Committee on Public Works, December 7, 
        1971.)

    Despite Train's warning, the Clean Water Act was amended to 
incorporate technology-based limitations with a modicum of 
regard for benefit-cost considerations. Today the credibility 
of federal environmental regulations is strained and the 
allocation of environmental protection resources is patently 
out of line with any set of rational priorities. As Peter 
Rogers, a water policy expert at Harvard University states, 
``there is an urgent need to review the cost-effectiveness, the 
timetables, the attainability, and the prescriptive nature of 
the present technology-based standards and regulations.''
    The Committee believes it is important to make sure that 
new or revised federal regulations be justified by the benefits 
they will attain. If proposed regulations cannot meet such a 
test, they will need to be reworked to make them less costly or 
achieve greater benefits. The benefit-cost requirement embodied 
in section 324 will force regulators to place a higher value on 
the resources they compel taxpayers, consumers, and others to 
use to restore and protect the nation's waters. It is the 
Committee's intention that this requirement will spur greater 
innovation and flexibility in the ways federal regulations are 
formulated and will ultimately achieve greater environmental 
protection than existing approaches at less cost. For instance, 
this section should encourage regulators to seek out situations 
where environmental protection and economic growth do not 
conflict, but go hand in hand.
    As mentioned above, section 324 contains some provisions 
that are different from those adopted in H.R. 1022. These 
include the criteria for benefit-cost review, the treatment of 
guidance, and exemptions from the review requirement. Each of 
these differences is described briefly below.
    The most notable difference between section 324 and H.R. 
1022 is the criteria for review. H.R. 1022 adopts three 
decision criteria:
          benefit-cost analyses are based on objective and 
        unbiased scientific and economic evaluations of all 
        significant and relevant information and risk 
        assessments;
          the incremental risk reduction or other benefits of 
        any strategy chosen will be likely to justify, and be 
        reasonably related to, the incremental costs incurred 
        by society; and
          that other alternative strategies identified or 
        considered by the agency were found either (A) to be 
        less cost-effective at achieving a substantially 
        equivalent reduction in risk, or (B) to provide less 
        flexibility to State, local, or tribal governments or 
        regulated entities in achieving the otherwise 
        applicable objectives of the regulation.
Section 324 adopts only one decision criterion: the regulation 
must ``maximize net benefits to society'' (section 324(a)(1)). 
The Committee believes that, for the purposes of the Clean 
Water Act, this standard is consistent with, and preferable to, 
the criteria listed in H.R. 1022 for the following reasons.
    First, the Committee expects that the first criterion of 
H.R. 1022, that benefit-cost analyses will be based on complete 
and unbiased information, will be incorporated into the 
guidance that will be issued under section 324(b).
    Second, the Committee notes that the second and third 
criteria of H.R. 1022, that incremental benefits be reasonably 
related to incremental costs and that the regulation must be 
the most cost-effective or flexible, are similar to standards 
already used under certain provisions of the Clean Water Act. 
For instance, applicants for permit modifications under section 
302(b)(2)(A) of the Act must show that the costs of achieving a 
effluent limitation are not reasonably related to the benefits 
and a cost-effectiveness test is used to help determine best 
available technology (BAT) standards under section 301(b)(2) of 
the Act.
    The Committee considers EPA's current implementation of 
these criteria as contrary to the intent of H.R. 1022 and 
section 324. For instance, as implemented under the Clean Water 
Act, the cost-effectiveness test does not always consider the 
option of no additional regulation (see, for instance, the list 
of options presented in ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis For 
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines And Standards For The 
Coastal Subcategory Of The Oil And Gas Extraction Point Source 
Category'' published by EPA in February 1995 on page 2-7). The 
Committee is concerned that EPA may consider its current 
interpretation of these tests as being consistent with the 
criteria of H.R. 1022.
    The ``maximize net benefits'' criterion adopted in section 
324 will solve this potential problem. For instance, it clearly 
requires EPA to consider all possible regulatory alternatives. 
In fact, because it may result in the selection of alternatives 
that could require a facility be closed (e.g., zero discharge 
that is not technically feasible), section 324(a)(2) limits the 
effect of the criterion by requiring the resulting regulatory 
requirement must be economically achievable. It is important to 
note that the ``maximize net benefits'' criterion does not 
conflict with cost-effectiveness and other criteria used in 
H.R. 1022, but, rather, subsumes them.\7\
    \7\ For a discussion of the relationship between benefit-cost 
criteria see Stokey, Edith and Richard Zeckhauser, ``A Primer for 
Policy Analysis,'' Norton, New York, 1978, pp. 137-155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The second reason the ``maximize net benefits'' criterion 
has been adopted for Clean Water Act requirements is that it 
will be administratively easier for EPA to implement than the 
three certifications under H.R. 1022. Since 1981, under 
President Reagan's Executive Order 12291, EPA has been required 
to estimate the costs and benefits of all new regulations. This 
requirement was renewed in 1993 under President Clinton's 
Executive Order 12866. Under these Executive Orders over 3,000 
EPA rules have gone through benefit-cost review. The ``maximize 
net benefits'' test under section 324 would subject new Clean 
Water Act regulations to the identical benefit-cost analysis 
required under Executive Order 12866. Thus section 324 would 
compel no additional analysis beyond that already required, 
assuming EPA has been complying with Executive Order 12866.
    A second important difference between section 324 and H.R. 
1022 is that it covers not only significant regulations (which 
are covered by H.R. 1022) but other significant regulatory 
requirements and significant guidance (see subsections 
324(a)(1) (A) and (B)). The Committee intends for section 324 
to cover the same set of policy documents as has been covered 
by Executive Orders 12291 and 12866. These are ``agency 
statements of general applicability and future effect, which 
the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is 
designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or 
to describe the procedure or practice requirements of the 
agency'' (Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)). The Committee 
notes that many documents EPA releases as ``guidance'' (such as 
the Great Lakes Initiative) have a stronger effect than that 
word typically connotes and that these documents will be 
improved by benefit-cost review.
    Finally, section 324 lists Clean Water Act-specific 
exemptions not found in H.R. 1022. These include the issuance 
of individual permits, purely procedural requirements, and, 
importantly, rules governing the formulation of water quality-
based standards. The Committee does not intend that the 
consideration of benefits or costs confuse EPA's development of 
water quality criteria under section 304 of the Clean Water 
Act, which represent non-regulatory scientific assessments of 
ecological effects. Further, while the Committee believes water 
quality-based standards should not be promulgated by EPA unless 
they result in benefits that are at least reasonably related to 
the costs of compliance with such standards (see section 303), 
it is not the Committee's intention to require EPA to 
``maximize net benefits to society'' when establishing water-
quality based standards.
    Benefit-cost analysis will not only result in better 
decision making at the first instance but will offer a baseline 
for determining whether regulations are, in fact, resulting in 
the benefits and costs that were anticipated. The Committee 
notes that federal policymakers are currently greatly 
restricted in what they can learn from the promulgation of past 
regulation because there is seldom a clear record of what was 
originally intended or expected. Section 324 should provide a 
basis for creating a feedback loop in the policymaking process 
so regulators can determine whether their original goals were 
met and what types of regulation may better protect human 
health and the environment at less cost.
    As a final note, the Committee recognizes the difficulty 
regulators face in attempting to perform benefit-cost analysis. 
First, it may be morally challenging. People often balk at 
admitting to the exchangeability of certain things. We would 
prefer to maintain that some things are beyond price. However, 
when society makes a decision to give up some of one good thing 
(e.g., reduced dredging of harbors) in order to get more of 
another good thing (e.g., reduced risk from contaminated 
sediments), a tradeoff necessarily takes place.
    The decisions that must be made by government involve 
painful choices. They affect both the quantity and distribution 
not only of goods and benefits, but also of potential health 
and environmental damage. As James DeLong, former research 
director of the Administrative Conference of the United States, 
has pointed out:

          It is easy to understand why people would want to 
        avoid making such choices and would rather act in 
        ignorance than with knowledge and responsibility for 
        the consequences of their choices. While this may be 
        understandable, I do not regard it as an acceptable 
        moral position. To govern is to choose, and government 
        officials--whether elected or appointed--betray their 
        obligations to the welfare of the people who hired them 
        if they adopt a policy of happy ignorance and 
        nonresponsibility for consequences.

    Benefit-cost analysis is designed not to dictate individual 
values, but to take them into account when decisions must be 
made collectively. Its use is grounded on the principle that, 
in democracy, government must act as an agent of the citizens.
    A second challenge regulators may face in using benefit-
cost analysis is technical. How are benefits and costs to be 
assessed? The Committee notes that the field of benefit-cost 
analysis is more developed than is generally recognized. As 
discussed above, benefit-cost analysis of all Clean Water rules 
has been required since 1981 and a federal guidance for 
conducing benefit-cost analysis, issued with EPA's concurrence, 
was published over five years ago.
    Further, the Committee does not intend that these analyses 
prolong the decision making process. The level of detail and 
effort required to complete these analyses should be 
commensurate with the expected impact of the requirement or 
guidance. It will come as no surprise if this section will 
initially be difficult to implement. It will require a change 
in thinking which will not be easy. However, the Committee 
expects that the estimation of benefits and costs will 
eventually become routine and subsequent benefit-cost analyses 
will greatly benefit from the experience gained under the 
Executive Orders and the first regulations or guidance assessed 
under this section.

                     title iv--permits and licenses

    Title IV of the bill amends Title IV of the Act, which 
addresses permits and licenses.

Section 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding 
        operations

    This section amends section 402 of the CWA to clarify the 
scope of EPA's existing exemption from permitting for certain 
waste treatment systems involving concentrated animal feeding 
operations (CAFOs) and impoundments.
    The Committee recognizes that both manmade and naturally 
existing impoundments are utilized by CAFOs to meet the water 
quality protection goals and effluent guidelines of the CWA. 
The Committee recognizes that, in certain parts of the country, 
a small number of CAFOs utilize playa lakes as waste retention 
facilities to store rainfall runoff, and process generated 
wastwater produced by the facility. Historically, these playa 
lakes have functioned well as waste retention systems due to 
lack of hydrologic connection to jurisdictional waters of the 
United States and by providing excess storage and evaporative 
capacity. It would be counterproductive to classify such 
structures as waters of the United States, thus restricting 
their future use. It is the Committee's intent that a 
concentrated animal feeding operation utilizing a natural 
topographic impoundment, including a playa lake, on the 
effective date of this Act is authorized under this Act to 
continue use of the impoundment.

Section 402. Permit reform

    Duration and Reopeners. Section 402(a) of the bill amends 
section 402(b) of the Act to extend permit terms from 5 to 10 
years. The ten year permit term does not preclude the 
permitting authority from terminating or modifying the permit 
for cause, including as necessary to address a significant 
threat to human health and the environment.
    Review of Effluent Limitations. Section 402(b) of the bill 
amends section 301(d) to require that effluent limitations in 
permits be reviewed at least every ten years, when the permit 
is reissued.
    Discharge Limit. Section 402(c) of the bill amends section 
402(b) of the Act to prohibit the permitting authority from 
setting discharge limits in permits that are below the lowest 
level that the pollutant can be reliably quantified on an 
interlaboratory basis for a particular test method, as 
determined by EPA using approved analytical methods. The 
requirement that the quantification level be achieved on an 
interlaboratory basis precludes the permitting authority from 
setting permit limits below a quantification level that is 
achieved by only one or two laboratories.

Section 403. Review of State programs and permits

    Section 403 of the bill amends section 402 to revise EPA's 
oversight of decisions made by States regarding implementation 
of State permitting programs. First, this section amends 
section 402(a) of the Act to place EPA review of State programs 
on a three year cycle. Second, this section amends section 
402(d) to change the standard for EPA disapproval of State 
permits from ``outside the guidelines and requirements of this 
Act'' to ``as presenting a substantial risk to human health and 
the environment.'' Third, this section amends section 402(h) to 
allow EPA to take judicial action to prohibit the introduction 
of pollutants to a treatment works only where the discharge 
involves a significant source of pollutants to the waters of 
the United States.

Section 404. Statistical noncompliance

    Section 404 of the bill amends section 402(k) of the Act to 
provide permittees and indirect dischargers with an affirmative 
defense to allegations of noncompliance with technology-based 
effluent limitations or pretreatment standards if the permittee 
or indirect discharger can show, through reference to 
information from EPA's rulemaking docket on the development of 
the relevant effluent guideline, that the technology on which 
the effluent limitation or pretreatment standard is based does 
not achieve that limitation or standard 100% of the time.
    Technology-based effluent limitations guidelines under the 
Clean Water Act are supposed to be based upon the pollutant 
concentration levels that can be achieved by application of the 
Best Practicable, Best Conventional, and Best Available 
Technology. In setting these technology-based limits, EPA 
identifies the model technology that meets the statutory 
criteria, and then collects data on the pollutant concentration 
levels that application of such technology is capable of 
achieving. Not surprisingly, the achievable levels vary from 
day to day. In deciding what discharger limits to promulgate, 
EPA analyzes the data from the model technology and, using a 
statistical methodology, determines the daily maximum pollutant 
concentration level that the model technology can achieve 99 
percent of the time, and the monthly average level that the 
technology can achieve 95 percent of the time. It does not set 
the limits at the highest daily maximum or monthly average 
concentration levels that the model technology achieved 
because, most of the time, the model achieves lower levels.
    Exceedences even 1 percent or 5 percent of the time expose 
dischargers to significant penalties, even when they are 
properly using the very technology on which the limits were 
based. For example, it is not uncommon in some industries for a 
discharge permit to contain limits on 50 pollutants. In such a 
case, a discharger using EPA's model technology would be 
expected to exceed its daily maximum limits 120 times and its 
monthly average limits 150 times during a 5-year permit term. 
The maximum potential penalty for this discharger for 
violations that are expected by EPA's methodology to occur is 
$115 million.
    EPA has argued that it can use its prosecutorial discretion 
not to bring enforcement actions against dischargers for the 
occasional exceedances expected from a technology. However, 
citizen suits are not constrained by prosecutorial discretion. 
Accordingly, this amendment gives dischargers with occasional 
permit exceedences a defense to liability if they can 
demonstrate that their performance is the same as the model 
technology on which EPA based their permit limits. Nothing in 
this amendment allows dischargers to reduce their current level 
of treatment and nothing in this amendment affects water-
quality-based effluent limitations.

Section 405. Anti-backsliding requirements

    Section 405 of the bill amends section 402(o) of the Act to 
provide that anti-backsliding restrictions do not apply to a 
POTW if the POTW demonstrates to EPA that the increase in its 
discharge is the result of conditions beyond its control and 
does not impair the water quality of the receiving waters.

Section 406. Intake credits

    Section 406 of the bill amends section 402 of the Act to 
require EPA to take into account the presence of pollutants in 
a discharger's intake water (i.e., water that is taken into a 
facility before the facility treats it for any purpose) if the 
source of the intake water and the receiving water is the same; 
if the source of the intake water meets drinking water 
standards; or if the level of a pollutant in the intake water 
is the same or lower than the level of that pollutant in the 
receiving water. However, intake credits are not required for a 
conventional pollutant where the constituents of the 
conventional pollutant in the intake water are not the same as 
the constituents of the conventional pollutant in the effluent. 
This amendment also requires EP to provide an appropriate 
intake credit in other circumstances, creating a presumption in 
favor of the use of intake credits. In some cases, the 
appropriate intake credit may be none at all. However, EPA must 
explain why intake credits are inappropriate with respect to a 
particular discharge permit.
    This amendment does not preempt States and require them to 
provide intake credits as well. However, the amendment does 
ensure that States will retain the flexibility to provide 
intake credits. In the context of the Great Lakes Initiative, 
EPA has suggested that it has the authority to preclude States 
from granting intake credits. This amendment makes it clear 
that EPA has no such authority.

Section 407. Combined sewer overflows

    Section 407 adds new subsection (s) to section 402 of the 
Act to specifically address combined storm and sanitary sewer 
system overflows (CSOs). New section 402(s)(1) contains the 
general requirement that permits for CSOs are consistent with 
the comprehensive CSO control policy finalized and signed by 
the Administrator on April 11, 1994. Section 402(s)(2) provides 
permit terms, including compliance deadlines for long term 
control plans and extended deadlines based on economic 
capability and reasonable further progress demonstrations.
    Section 402(s)(2)(C) includes additional limitations on 
extensions. Since it has been demonstrated that some of the 
untreated wastes discharged during storm events from CSOs 
located in New York have had negative impacts on the shore 
areas of New Jersey (resulting in a court-imposed deadline for 
compliance), the opportunity for extension has been limited. 
Any extension requested by either New York or New Jersey for a 
discharge which would affect the other State would have to be 
agreed to in advance, in writing, by the governors of both 
States.
    New section 402(s)(2)(C)(3) includes a savings clause 
relating to consent decrees and court orders entered or issued 
before enactment of H.R. 961. Certain deadlines, schedules or 
timetables shall be modified to extend to December 31, 2009.

Section 408. Sanitary sewer overflows

    Section 408 adds new subsection (t) to section 402 of the 
Act to specifically address sanitary sewer system overflows 
(SSOs). New section 402(t)(1) directs the Administrator to 
develop and publish a national control policy for municipal 
separate sanitary sewer overflows. The SSO policy must 
recognize and address regional and economic factors. The 
Committee also expects the Administrator to provide a thorough 
assessment of the problem, including the magnitude, frequency, 
location, nature, impact, health effects, and existing 
regulatory controls of SSOs.
    Paragraphs (2) and (3) require permits for SSOs to conform 
to the SSO policy and to include compliance deadlines, 
including deadlines for long term control plans. Paragraph (4) 
allows for an extension of such deadlines if certain conditions 
are met.
    Paragraph (5) provides that, prior to publication of the 
SSO policy, the Administrator or Attorney General may not 
initiate any administrative or judicial civil penalty action in 
response to an SSO due to stormwater inflows or infiltration.
    Paragraph (6) includes a savings clause similar to the one 
applicable to CSOs; specifically, certain deadlines, schedules 
or timetables shall be extended to December 31, 2009.

Section 409. Abandoned mines

    This section authorizes EPA to issue permits to 
governmental entities and persons cooperating with governmental 
entities that are remediating abandoned mines. The permits 
modify otherwise applicable Clean Water Act requirements and 
require the incorporation of a remediation plan. The 
remediation plan must include, among other things, a 
description of the physical conditions at the site which are 
causing adverse water quality impacts and a description of the 
practices proposed to reduce, control, mitigate or eliminate 
the adverse conditions, along with a schedule for implementing 
such practices. The remediation plan must demonstrate, with 
reasonable certainty, that the actions taken will result in an 
improvement of water quality.
    Abandoned mines continue to pose a problem as a major 
source of water pollution, as thousands of stream miles are 
severely impacted by drainage and runoff. These mine sites are 
of particular concern in the Western States, where sites are 
numerous and the water supply so precious. However, through 
remedial actions, water quality previously tainted by mining 
activities can be improved. The current CWA scheme, however, 
does not provide the flexibility nor the incentive for 
undertaking or encouraging such remedial action. The Committee 
strongly favors remedial measures to improve water quality, and 
intends through implementation of section 409, to encourage 
such activities for abandoned mine sites.

Section 410. Beneficial use of biosolids

    Subsection 410(a) amends section 405 of the CWA to 
acknowledge that sewage sludge is also referred to as 
biosolids. Beneficial recycling of biosolids is an 
environmentally and scientifically sound practice that can, 
among other things, improve soil fertility and water 
conservation. The Committee supports these and other efforts to 
encourage greater public acceptance of beneficial reuse.
    Subsection (b) of the bill directs the Administrator to 
approve delegation of a State biosolid program if the State 
includes all the substantive standards for Final Use and 
Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 C.F.R. Part 503, as revised.
    EPA's insistence on strict adoption of procedural 
requirements has delayed delegation. This provision will 
provide needed flexibility to the States for accepting primacy 
over the Part 503 program. The biosolids program will operate 
most effectively when run by the States, and States should be 
given maximum flexibility to develop their biosolids programs, 
consistent with the Part 503 regulations. Even though the 
regulations have been in place for over two years, no State has 
yet assumed primacy for the program.
    Subsection (c) further amends section 405 of the CWA by 
including a reference to ``building materials'' (such as 
``biobricks''), directing the Administrator to issue additional 
guidance on beneficial use of sewage sludge and updating the 
funding authorization for the section. The Committee strongly 
encourages the Administrator to actively promote the 
development and use of biobricks, one of several promising 
beneficial uses of sewage sludge. Biobricks, a mixture of 
sewage sludge, clay and shale, have virtually identical 
characteristics as other bricks, but added benefits. For 
example, use of biobricks can help preserve valuable landfill 
space and conserve energy and water.

Section 411. Waste treatment systems defined

    Section 411 of the bill adds new section 406 to the Act to 
require EPA to issue regulations defining waste treatment 
systems. Such regulations must include areas used for 
detention, retention, treatment, settlement, conveyance, or 
evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water within 
the definition of waste treatment system unless (1) such area 
was created in a navigable water after the date of enactment, 
(2) the owner or operator of the area allows it to be used by 
interstate or foreign travelers for recreational purposes, or 
(3) the owner or operator of the area allows it to be used for 
fishing for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
    Under section 502 of the bill, waste treatment systems (as 
defined by EPA within the parameters of new section 406) are 
excluded from the definition of navigable waters. This 
amendment confirms what is already evident from structure and 
purposes of the Act and from EPA's current applicable 
regulatory definition of ``navigable waters.'' It should not 
even be necessary to amend the Act to make it clear that, 
except in unusual circumstances, areas used for the treatment 
of wastewaters prior to their discharge to navigable waters are 
not themselves navigable waters. However, EPA has not 
consistently applied the regulatory definition of navigable 
waters, creating uncertainty for the regulated community.
    On May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated a definition a ``navigable 
waters'' at 40 C.F.R. section 122.2 that excluded ``waste 
treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons 
designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (other 
than cooling ponds as defined in 40 C.F.R. section 423.11(m) 
which also meet the criteria of this definition).'' In the 
definition, EPA also provided that: ``This exclusion applies 
only to manmade bodies of water which neither were originally 
created in waters of the United States (such as disposal areas 
in wetlands) nor resulted from the impoundment of waters of the 
United States.''
    The exception in 40 C.F.R. section 122.2 to the general 
exclusion of waste treatment systems from the definition of 
navigable waters was suspended by EPA on July 21, 1980. (45 
Fed. Reg. 48620.) At that time, EPA agreed that the definition 
of navigable waters may be overboard and should be reexamined. 
In addition, there no longer is a definition of cooling ponds 
at 40 C.F.R. section 423.11(m), or elsewhere in EPA's 
regulations.
    EPA has not consistently interpreted its regulations to 
exclude from the definition of navigable waters all waste 
treatment systems that may have been constructed in 
jurisdictional waters, or even all waste treatment systems that 
were clearly constructed outside of jurisdictional waters. In a 
December 13, 1993, memorandum, Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant 
Administrator for Water reviewed issues relating to whether a 
new utility cooling pond constructed in part in jurisdictional 
wetlands would be considered a ``navigable water.'' Mr. 
Perciasepe concluded that ``due to the ambiguities in the 
existing regulation and apparent lack of national consistency, 
EPA should begin rulemaking development to air the policy 
issues and clarify the jurisdictional status of steam electric 
cooling ponds.'' EPA has informed the Committee that currently 
it is not working on the development of such a rulemaking.
    In the meantime, under Mr. Perciasepe's memorandum, EPA 
Regions have the discretion to make decisions regarding whether 
waste treatment systems are navigable waters on a case-by-case 
basis. The memorandum specifies that (1) Regions may regulate 
treatment systems as navigable waters based on an actual or 
potential connection to interstate commerce (which under some 
court decisions may include potential use of water by migratory 
birds), (2) Regions may interpret the current regulatory 
exclusion for waste treatment systems as including all cooling 
ponds, whether or not built in jurisdictional waters, or (3) 
Regions may take into account the particular uses of a cooling 
pond to decide whether it is a navigable water.
    Although built partially in wetlands, Region IV ultimately 
decided that the cooling pond that was the subject of the 1993 
Perciasepe memorandum was not a navigable water. However, a 
later regulatory official may decide to revisit that decision. 
In short, companies and individuals today live under a very 
real fear that cooling ponds and surface impoundments they are 
using for waste treatment may suddenly be determined to be 
navigable waters, and subject to the full panoply of Clean 
Water Act requirements. This is not simply a theoretical 
concern. There are companies and individuals that are currently 
under threat of EPA enforcement action in which they are 
alleged to have discharged without an NPDES permit into 
settling and evaporation basins that no one previously had ever 
suggested were navigable waters.
    In requiring EPA to clarify the definition of navigable 
waters as it applies to waste treatment systems, the Committee 
is making the policy decision that EPA may not revisit an 
earlier decision to allow the creation of a waste treatment 
system in a jurisdictional area, such as wetlands, without 
requiring an NPDES permit for discharges to that waste 
treatment system. Accordingly, such waste treatment systems are 
grandfathered. If, however, EPA has asserted jurisdiction over 
the system and has issued a final NPDES permit for discharges 
to that system, those areas remain navigable waters.
    In developing its regulations, EPA has the discretion to 
regulate a waste treatment system as a navigable water only if 
(1) such area was created in a navigable water after the date 
of enactment, (2) the owner or operator of the area allows it 
to be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational 
purposes, or (3) the owner or operator of the area allows it to 
be used for fishing for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. 
In giving EPA discretion over the jurisdictional status of such 
areas, the Committee is not requiring that such areas be 
regulated as navigable waters. In fact, EPA may conclude that 
such areas are adequately protected under State law or other 
Federal law; that non-waste treatment uses of the area are 
sufficiently limited; that classification of an area as a waste 
treatment system will not pose any significant risk to public 
health; that facilities open for certain non-treatment uses 
after the operative date have been or will be closed; that 
failure to include such areas within the definition of waste 
treatment system would undermine the achievement of the goals 
or requirements of the Act; or that Clean Water Act regulation 
of such areas is not necessary for other policy reasons 
identified during the rulemaking process. EPA's rules also may 
allow for case-by-case classification of existing or proposed 
areas as ``waste treatment systems'' if such classification is 
given finality.
    Finally, for those areas constructed as waste treatment 
systems that are nevertheless classified as navigable waters 
subject to regulation under the Act, the amendment directs EPA 
and the States to take into account the treatment purposes for 
which the area was constructed, and allow a permitting 
authority to tailor any regulatory requirements, including 
water quality standards, to avoid interfering with continued 
use of the area for waste treatment. In particular, as to heat, 
which generally would not be expected to pose any threat to 
human health, the Committee would expect that thermal standards 
or other requirements imposed, if any, would not constrain 
continued use of the area for heat dissipation.

Section 412. Thermal discharges

    The intent of section 412 is to require that either the EPA 
or the State of Ohio determine, based on scientific evidence, 
that thermal discharges from the Piqua Municipal Utility are 
actually causing harm to aquatic life, before they require the 
Utility to construct a cooling tower or operate under a thermal 
management plan. Additionally, the Committee intends that the 
Utility not be required to construct the cooling tower of 
implement the thermal management plan until it has had the 
opportunity to utilize all rights of appeal and judicial 
review.

                      title v--general provisions

Section 501. Consultation with States

    Section 501 amends the CWA to require, among other things, 
that EPA consult and substantially involve State and local 
governments in CWA decisionmaking and implementation efforts. 
Furthermore, it exempts meetings held between federal officials 
and State, local, and tribal officials for the purposes of 
exchanging views, information, or advice relating to the 
management or implementation of this Act from the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.
    The Committee repeatedly received requests, throughout the 
testimony on CWA reform, to increase the role of State and 
local governments in the decisionmaking process regarding water 
issues. Numerous examples were provided demonstrating that 
water issues could be more effectively addressed at the State 
and local level, rather than solely at the federal level. Due 
to the size and rich diversity of our nation's water supply, 
State and local interests, often times, are in a better 
position to address water issues unique to their region. The 
Committee acknowledges this fact, and recognizes the importance 
of State and local input into the decisionmaking process.

Section 502. Navigable waters defined

    Section 502 of the bill amends section 502(7) of the Act to 
exclude ``waste treatment systems,'' as defined under new 
section 406, from the definition of navigable waters.

Section 503. CAFO definition clarification

    Section 503 amends section 502(14) of the CWA to clarify 
the definition of a concentrated animal feeding operation 
(CAFO) as a point source. Unlike typical concentrated 
production facilities where animals are fed and maintained on a 
continuous basis for extended periods of time, intermittent 
nonproducing livestock operations are short-term, temporary 
facilities. These operations, such as stockyards or holding and 
sorting facilities, typically house livestock less than 24 
hours for one to two days per week, and keep feeding and 
watering to a minimum.
    Section 503 clarifies CAFO to include intermittent 
nonproducing operations only if the average number of animal 
units that are fed or maintained in any 90 consecutive day 
period exceeds the number of animal units determined by EPA or 
the State to constitute a CAFO; or if the operation is 
designated by EPA or State as a significant contributor of 
pollution.

Section 504. Publicly owned treatment works defined

    Section 504 of the bill amends section 502 to add a 
definition for POTWs. To encourage privatization of treatment 
works, this definition includes all treatment works, other than 
those located at industrial facilities, that EPA determines are 
designed and constructed principally to treat domestic sewage 
or a mixture of domestic sewage and liquid industrial wastes, 
and, if privately owned, are carrying out and complying with a 
pretreatment program that meets the requirements of section 307 
of the Act.

Section 505. State water quantity rights

    Section 505 amends section 510 of the Act to clarify that 
the Act does not abrogate a State's right to allocate 
quantities of water or authorize the Federal Government to 
allocate quantities of water. The provision responds in part to 
the increasing concern that the Federal Government may try to 
circumvent the intent of section 101(g) by superseding, 
abrogating, or otherwise impairing State authorities to 
allocate water or superseding, abrogating, or otherwise 
impairing rights to quantities of water established by State 
law. The Committee reiterates that the Clean Water Act is a 
water quality and water pollution control statute and is not to 
be used by the Federal Government as a means to accomplish 
other ``agendas'' such as water quantity allocation.
    During its hearing process, the Committee became aware of 
several potential impacts of the Supreme Court's decision in 
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of 
Ecology (1994). The case is particularly relevant to 
relationships among Federal and State agencies and to the 
Federal regulation of U.S. hydroelectric resources. In this 
case, the Supreme Court ruled, among other things, that State 
water quality agencies, under section 401 of the Act, could 
impose stream flow requirements and place other mandatory 
conditions on hydropower projects to support designated uses.
    This decision raises significant policy issues regarding 
duplication of review in the licensing process for hydropower 
projects regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC). Of primary concern is the consequence that State water 
quality agencies, under the purview of section 401, might 
consider and place mandatory conditions on hydropower projects 
to address issues that are already considered within the 
Federal licensing process.
    Notably, the Supreme Court's decision in PUD No. 1 of 
Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology did not 
address how to resolve potential conflicts between State water 
quality agency certification requirements and the comprehensive 
statutory responsibilities of FERC under the Federal Power Act. 
As a result, hydroelectric licensees are left with some 
uncertainly and a process that does not necessarily allow for 
resolution of intergovernmental conflicts or provide the 
stability and accountability necessary for an effective and 
workable regulatory program.
    While recognizing the need for clarification and regulatory 
reform, the Committee did not include legislative language on 
this issue in order to allow adequate time for the hydropower 
community and state representatives to collaborate on 
development of a mutually agreeable resolution to the program. 
Should negotiations in this regard prove unsuccessful, the 
Committee plans to work with others to resolve the issue 
legislatively by addressing questions of duplication in the 
hydropower licensing process, the role of FERC, and proper 
deference to State water quality agencies.

Section 506. Implementation of water pollution laws with respect to 
        vegetable oil

    Section 506 requires federal agencies to differentiate 
among types of oil when issuing or enforcing regulations or 
guidelines relating to water pollution control laws. For 
purposes of this section the phrase ``water pollution control 
laws'' is a reference to the CWA and the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990. The requirements to apply different standards and 
reporting requirements (including reporting requirements based 
on quantitative amounts) is a reference to the so-called 
``sheen rule'' and the need to include a quantitative, 
volumetric component to such reporting requirements.

Section 507. Needs estimate

    Section 507 of the bill amends section 516(b) of the Act to 
authorize the existing needs estimate to be prepared 
quadrennially rather than biennially.

Section 508. General program authorizations

    Section 508 of the bill amends section 517 of the Act to 
authorize such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1996-
2000 to carry out the Act.

Section 509. Indian tribes

    Section 509(a) of the bill amends section 518 of the Act to 
require EPA to respect the terms of cooperative agreements that 
address the authority of a State or Indian Tribe to administer 
this Act. The Committee believes that the most appropriate 
method to ensure consistent implementation of this section 
between State and Tribal authorities is the development of 
cooperative agreements. It is the Committee's view that the 
Administrator should not revise the division of responsibility 
between a State and a Tribe under this section so long as the 
cooperative agreement provides for adequate administration of 
the section.
    Section 509(b) amends section 518 to require EPA to issue 
regulations providing for resolution of disputes arising from 
differing water quality standards that may be issued by States 
and Indian Tribes located on common bodies of water. The 
Committee is of the opinion that there should be a process to 
resolve disputes between States and Indian Tribes over 
differing water quality standards located on common water 
bodies. The Committee also believes that all persons who are 
impacted by differing water quality standards between the 
States and Indian Tribes should have standing to utilize the 
dispute resolution process.
    Section 509(c) amends section 518 to give United States 
District Courts the jurisdiction to review any EPA 
determinations under Section 518. Because of the cost and 
burden on States and Indian Tribes associated with challenge to 
EPA actions, the Committee believes that the proper forum for 
challenges to actions under this section are the U.S. District 
Courts that are proximate to the impacted parties. It is also 
the Committee's view that given the complex legal regimes 
attendant to States and Indian Tribes under this Section that 
the District Court should undertake its review de novo 
including the taking of evidence.
    Section 509(d) defines ``Federal Indian Reservation'' to 
include, in the State of Oklahoma, lands held in trust by the 
United States for the benefit of a Tribe, lands subject to 
federal restrictions against alienation, and lands located 
within a dependent Indian community. This provision simply 
conforms the Act to take into account the unique status of 
certain Indian Tribes within the State of Oklahoma.
    Section 509(e) amends section 518(c) to reserve 1 percent 
of sums appropriated under sections 607 and 608 for Indian 
Tribes. This provision raised from one-half of 1 percent the 
amounts to be made available to Indian Tribes. This will allow 
for additional resources to be authorized for use by Native 
Americans to alleviate some of the most pressing Clean Water 
needs.

Section 510. Food processing and food safety

    Section 510 of the bill adds section 519 to the Act to 
require EPA to consult with FDA, the Department of Health and 
Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and the 
Department of Commerce when developing any effluent guideline, 
pretreatment standard, or new source performance standard 
applicable to the food processing industry and to consider and 
explain any departure from any comments from these entities 
with respect to food safety.

Section 511. Audit dispute resolution

    Section 511 of the bill adds new section 520 to the Act to 
require EPA to establish an independent Board of Audit Appeals 
to review and decide contested audit determination with respect 
to grant and contract awards under the Act.
    Over the past several years, as the construction grants 
program has been phased-out, funded projects have undergone 
rigorous close-out audits to ensure that funds were 
appropriately expended and that completed projects comply with 
the grantee's stated plans, designs, and specifications. The 
Committee has heard testimony over the past several years about 
disallowance by auditors of previously approved project costs 
where there is no fraud or abuse.
    For example, in the case of the Las Virgenes Municipal 
Water District in California, an audit disallowed all EPA 
approved project costs, totalling more than $10 million, 
because of potential ineligible portions of the sludge disposal 
facility project. The audit decision was based on the 
conclusion that the previously approved project design was 
unacceptable because it resulted in excess disposal capacity. 
After four years of appeals to EPA, the disallowed costs were 
reversed. The grantee was awarded all of the costs with the 
exception of $126,000.
    This example is not unique. A survey of audit performed in 
Region IX between 1985 and 1992 revealed that auditors 
disallowed approximately 53% of previously approved costs. 
However, on appeal, 93% of all project costs were upheld. The 
survey also found that during this time period, EPA spent $12 
million to conduct audits, but recovered only $3.5 million 
based on the final audit resolution.
    The current audit and appeals process is not cost-effective 
and has forced local governments to initiate costly and time 
consuming appeals that could be handled more efficiently. The 
Committee also is concerned about the potential conflict of 
interest created by the fact that, currently, EPA reviews 
decisions of auditors, even though it is EPA's own project 
decisions that are the subject of the audit. Accordingly, this 
amendment directs EPA to establish an independent audit appeals 
board. This board will provide both local government officials 
and EPA with an impartial process through which claims can be 
reviewed and settled, minimizing costs to Federal, State, and 
local government.

        title vi--state water pollution control revolving funds

Section 601. General authority for capitalization grants

    This section broadens the authorized uses of State 
revolving loan fund (SRF) assistance to include any activities 
that accomplish the purposes of the Clean Water Act. (See 
conforming provisions in section 603 below.)

Section 602. Capitalization grant agreements

    Section 602 removes administrative requirements previously 
imposed on Title II grant recipients and currently extended to 
applicants who receive SRF capitalization grant loans. Other 
cross-cutting federal requirements that may apply to the use of 
SRF loans (e.g., regulations implementing the Drug-Free 
Workplace Act of 1988) will be considered met if a State has an 
applicable program which addresses the intent of the federal 
requirement. Existing federal requirements would only apply to 
activities receiving federal capitalization grants. Activities 
funded by State resources and funds from repaid federal grants 
would not be covered by federal requirements. This section also 
requires EPA to issue guidance within one year of enactment on 
simplified procedures to aid small communities (populations of 
20,000 or less) in obtaining assistance under the SRF program. 
(See section 603 below for other provisions affecting small 
communities.)

Section 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds

    Section 603 broadens the activities eligible for SRF loans 
to those actions that have as their principal benefit the 
protection or improvement of water quality. This includes non-
point source programs, watershed management, stormwater 
management, and measures to improve water use efficiency. 
Nothing in this section is intended to supersede or otherwise 
affect other EPA programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Nothing in this section authorizes the use of funds for 
consolidation of small drinking water systems or plumbing 
replacement. Disadvantaged communities would be eligible for 
extended repayment schedules of up to 40 years and negative 
interest rates as low as negative two percent. 
``Disadvantaged'' would be defined by the State based on 
guidance to be issued by EPA. States may use up to 2 percent of 
SRF grants for technical assistance to small communities.
    Subsection (i) also allows States or relevant agencies to 
transfer treatment works to a qualified private sector agency. 
This subsection generally codifies provisions of Executive 
Order 12803 issued April 30, 1992.
    In section 603(c) of the bill, the Committee has expanded 
the eligible purposes for which State revolving loan funds may 
be used to include loan guarantees for developing and 
implementing innovative technologies for purposes of meeting 
the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act. This will 
provide more flexibility to States in assisting private sector 
projects that may provide substantial water quality benefits.
    The Committee is aware that there may be cases in which the 
recipient of a guarantee will be willing to pay the cost of the 
guarantee. This type of financing would protect the interests 
of the State revolving loan fund while enabling the recipient 
to obtain financing at a reasonable rate. The Committee 
encourages States to explore this type of financing to promote 
private sector solutions to water quality problems.

Section 604. Allotment of funds

    Section 604 provides for a new allotment formula based on 
population and recently estimated needs, but adjusts the 
formula to insert a hold harmless and cap limitation to prevent 
any State from losing or gaining approximately 10 percent of 
the State's prior allotment. Without the hold harmless and cap 
limitation, the allotments to many States would change 
drastically. For instance, over 14 States would see a reduction 
of over 50 percent in their allotments (see Figure 2). The 10 
percent limitation will ameliorate these potentially disruptive 
changes.


Section 605. Authorization of appropriations

    Section 605 authorizes general SRF capitalization grants at 
$2.5 billion each year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000. It 
is the Committee's view that authorizing SRF capitalization 
grants at this level is critical to assisting States and local 
governments in keeping pace with Clean Water Act needs.
    In the near term EPA estimates that current Clean Water Act 
mandates will cost municipalities approximately $23 billion in 
fiscal year 1996. This is more than six times the total amount 
of Federal grants to States and local governments for all 
environmental needs proposed for 1996 (see Figure 3). In the 
longer term, EPA estimates that States face over $137 billion 
in capital needs to meet existing Clean Water Act requirements 
over the next 20 years.


    On a related issue, the Committee also received testimony 
critical of the manner in which EPA disburses SRF 
capitalization grants to States. EPA currently disburses grants 
through a letter of credit (LOC) procedure whereby the Agency 
makes commitments to the States through a LOC account 
established between EPA and the State. Funds are disbursed when 
States ``draw'' against the LOC to meet financial obligations. 
Thus, ``draws'' are made as costs are incurred to meet 
construction invoices, premiums for the purchase of bond 
insurance, and satisfy other fiscal needs.
    When it enacted the SRF program, Congress intended for 
capitalization payments to be made in the form of cash or 
check. The use of LOCs to disburse funds was not discussed or 
contemplated. LOCs were developed later by the Executive Branch 
to defer outlays.
    The LOC disbursement method effectively prohibits States 
from implementing authorized uses of SRF funds which require 
access to cash in advance of meeting obligations (see section 
603(d) of the Act for a list of authorized uses). 
Unfortunately, the authorized uses of the fund the LOC method 
obstructs are those uses that offer States very productive 
capital generation. The Committee is concerned that, in 
implementing the LOC approach, the Executive Branch has 
deprived the federal government of maximizing the effectiveness 
of its investment in water quality improvement.
    The Committee believes cash payments would result in a more 
beneficial and productive use of limited federal funds and 
calls upon the Administration to work with the appropriate 
Committees of Congress in studying the advisability and 
feasibility of moving from the current LOC method for 
disbursing capitalization grants to cash disbursement as 
originally intended by Congress.

Section 606. State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving 
        funds

    Nonpoint source pollution represents the largest remaining 
challenge to achieving clean water standards. Recognizing that 
resource allocations should reflect this changing priority, 
this section amends Title VI to authorize $500,000,000 per year 
for a separate State nonpoint source revolving fund dedicated 
to nonpoint source pollution. Since each State faces a 
different range of water quality problems and priorities, the 
Committee has provided for maximum flexibility by allowing each 
State to transfer funds from one fund to the other.
    The Committee expects States to utilize these funds 
aggressively in providing financial assistance to farmers, 
ranchers and others involved in nonpoint source activities for 
the purpose of implementing management measures and for 
development and implementation of the water quality components 
of whole farm and ranch plans designed to reduce nonpoint 
source runoff, with a priority for impaired waters. This 
dedicated fund also may be used by States to implement the new 
stormwater management programs that States are required to 
develop to address stormwater runoff under section 322 of the 
bill. States are authorized and encourages to utilize the full 
range of flexibility in utilizing SRF funds, including low- and 
negative-interest loans to serve as cost-share grants.

                  title vii--miscellaneous provisions

Section 701. Technical amendments

    Section 701 provides a number of technical corrections to 
be made to Title 33 of the U.S. code, including grammatical 
corrections, typographical errors and misspellings, and 
inadvertent deletions from original text.

Section 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research 
        Laboratory

    Section 702 renames the National Fresh Water Laboratory in 
Duluth, Minnesota for former Chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation, John A. Blatnik. Chairman 
Blatnik included authorization of the National Fresh Water 
Laboratory in the 1961 reauthorization of the water pollution 
control law, as a companion to the National Salt Water 
Laboratory already established in Rhode Island.

Section 703. Wastewaster service for colonias

    Section 703 authorizes $50 million for grants to States 
along the United States-Mexican border to assist in the 
planning, design, and construction of wastewater treatment 
works for communities along the border, known as ``Colonias.'' 
These grants shall be administered through the EPA. The federal 
cost of projects undertaken pursuant to these grants shall be 
limited to 50 percent, with the non-federal share to be 
provided by the State receiving the grant.

Section 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs

    The Committee believes that municipalities will achieve 
substantial savings from implementation of CWA reforms, in 
addition to the environmental benefits expected. Section 704 
requires EPA to perform a study of the annual savings that 
municipalities realize specifically in the construction, 
operation, and maintenance of drinking water supplies as a 
result of actions taken pursuant to the CWA; and to report its 
findings to Congress within one year.

            title viii--wetlands conservation and management

    Title VIII replaces section 404 of the existing Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) with a new, comprehensive 
program to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into 
waters of the United States (including wetlands) and drainage, 
channelization and excavation activities in wetlands.
    Section 801 cites Title VIII as the ``Comprehensive 
Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995.''
    Section 802 includes findings and statements of purpose. 
Findings include declarations regarding the importance of 
wetlands to the Nation; the need for a regulatory approach that 
balances wetlands conservation and enhancement with 
consideration of private property rights and the need for 
essential infrastructure and economic growth; the fact that 
section 404 was not originally established as a wetlands 
regulatory program and, under current law, is not effective as 
such; and the need to streamline regulatory procedures for 
navigational dredging. Purposes of Title VIII include the 
assertion by Congress that, for the first time, Federal 
regulatory jurisdiction should be applied to a broad category 
of activities that cause wetland losses; that Federal agency 
actions should not limit use of private property or diminish 
its value; that the relative value of wetlands as measured by 
the functions they perform should be taken into account in 
establishing the regulatory requirements applied to activities 
in wetlands; and that procedures for regulating navigational 
dredging should be streamlined.
    Section 803 is the principal component of Title VIII. It 
strikes the current section 404 of the FWPCA and replaces it 
with a new section 404. The following paragraphs summarize the 
new provisions of section 404:
    New section 404(a) specifies that no person may undertake 
an activity in a wetland or a water of the United States 
without a permit from the Secretary of the Army (``Secretary'') 
unless otherwise authorized by this section.
    New section 404(b) authorizes the Secretary to issue 
permits in accordance with this section. No Federal permit is 
required under section 404 for an activity occurring in a Type 
C wetland, or that is authorized under a general permit, or 
that is exempt from permit requirements. This provision does 
not limit State or local government's ability to regulate 
activities pursuant to their own authorities.
    New section 404(c) establishes procedures for the 
classification of wetlands for purposes of this title and 
procedures for obtaining wetland classifications. The 
classification of wetlands according to the relative functions 
they perform is an essential element of the reforms this title 
achieves.
    Under existing law, there is no meaningful provision for 
determining the degree of rigor to be applied in regulating 
proposed activities in wetlands. Today, all federal 
jurisdictional wetlands are subject to the same degree of 
regulatory rigor whether the wetland in question is a pristine 
wooded swamp or a small, degraded wetland in an industrial 
development. The regulatory agencies suggest that distinctions 
with respect to various classes of wetlands are reflected in 
their regulatory decisions, although these distinctions are not 
reflected in the provisions of the statute. Indeed, the Corps 
of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency issued 
guidance to their field offices in 1993 on this issue.
    The Committee believes strongly that the federal wetlands 
regulatory program must reflect the reality that all wetlands 
are not equal. Some wetlands provide greater environmental 
functions than others and should be treated accordingly. New 
section 404(c) will remedy this problem in current law by 
requiring that regulatory emphasis be placed on conserving and 
enhancing the truly valuable wetland resources while requiring 
the traditional ``public interest'' balancing be applied to 
most wetlands. Regulation of low value wetlands will be left to 
the discretion of State and local governments. This approach 
will also allow the limited federal funding and personnel 
resources available for this program to be concentrated on 
those wetland resources that are most important to the goals of 
the FWPCA.
    The Secretary is required to issue regulations within one 
year of enactment on procedures to be used in classifying 
wetlands. Persons seeking to undertake activities in wetlands 
regulated under this section must apply to the Secretary to 
make a determination on the classification of the affected 
wetland. Within 90 days of receipt of the application, the 
Secretary must advise the person of the wetland classification 
and the basis for such classification. In those cases where the 
activity would affect a wetland that has already been 
classified pursuant to the advance classification program under 
section 404(h), the Secretary must, within 30 days of receipt 
of the application, provide that information to the person and 
allow opportunity for a de novo classification and an 
administrative appeal of the classification.
    Type A wetlands are defined as those which are of critical 
significance to the long-term conservation of the aquatic 
environment and which meet specified requirements. Such 
requirements include that Type A wetlands (1) serve critical 
wetlands functions; (2) are at least 10 acres in size (or a 
part of a wetland that is at least that large) and have either 
an inlet or an outlet providing for the flow of water into or 
out of the wetland; (3) occur in a watershed or aquatic 
environment where there is a scarcity of Type A wetland 
functions; and (4) are wetlands in which there is unlikely to 
be an overriding public interest in the use of such wetlands 
other than conservation.
    In issuing regulations on wetland classification, the 
Secretary is expected to establish clear parameters for 
applying such terms as ``critical significance'' and 
``scarcity.'' Areas that are wetlands under this section but do 
not satisfy the requirements for Type A wetlands shall be 
deemed to be either Type B or Type C wetlands. The Committee 
has included language that assures that areas such as prairie 
potholes, vernal pools and playa lakes are not excluded from 
being classified as Type A wetlands solely because of their 
limited size or lack of an inlet or outlet for the flow of 
water; This provision, however, is not intended to prejudge 
that such areas are Type A wetlands. Depending on the wetland 
functions they perform and the application of wetland 
delineation criteria, such areas may be Type B or Type C 
wetlands or may not qualify as Federal jurisdictional wetlands 
at all. These determinations must be made on a case-by-case 
basis.
    Type B wetlands are those which provide habitat for 
significant populations of wetland wildlife or perform other 
significant wetland functions. Such wetlands will provide 
enhancement or protection of water quality, significant natural 
flood control or similar benefits, but in amounts less than 
that provided by Type A wetlands. As with Type A wetlands, the 
Secretary shall define ``significant'' and other key terms in 
regulations. The Committee anticipates that most wetlands will 
be determined to be Type B wetlands under this Act.
    Type C wetlands are the least valuable wetlands in terms of 
the functions they perform. They include such areas as those 
which serve limited wetland functions; which serve some wetland 
functions but exist in relatively abundant quantity such that 
Federal regulation is not required to conserve important 
wetland functions; and areas that are within developed areas 
that do not serve significant wetlands functions. Wetlands 
shall not be classified as being Type C merely because they are 
located in developed areas. The committee recognizes that many 
valuable wetlands are located in or adjacent to urban centers 
or other developed sites.
    A landowner may request and obtain a determination of 
whether a wetland or other water of the United States is 
present on his or her property and, if wetlands are present, 
the classification of such wetlands. The Secretary must make 
determinations and notify the owner within 90 days of such a 
request and must provide documentation on the basis for making 
the determination. In the event that the landowner disagrees 
with the Secretary's determinations, the owner may pursue a 
judicial review of or an administrative appeal of the 
determination.
    New section 404(d) prescribes the requirements and 
procedures for remedies to Federal regulatory actions taken 
under this section that limit the use of property thereby 
reducing the property's value. These provisions are consistent 
with those contained in H.R. 925, which was passed by the House 
of Representatives on March 3, 1995. These provisions require 
that a property owner who has a portion of his or her property 
value diminished by 20% or more by an agency action under this 
section shall be compensated by the Federal Government for that 
amount. If the affected portion of the property is diminished 
by more than 50%, the property owner has the right to require 
the Federal Government to purchase the affected portion of the 
property for its fair market value. Compensation shall not be 
made with respect to any agency action taken to prevent a 
nuisance as defined by State law; an activity prohibited under 
local zoning ordinance; or a hazard to public health or safety 
or that is potentially damaging to other property. For example, 
if a permit is denied for a structure that would otherwise 
result in flooding to an adjacent property, the permit 
applicant would not be eligible for compensation under this 
title.
    Once compensation has been made under this title, the 
affected portion of the property generally cannot be used in a 
manner that is contrary to the limitation imposed by the 
regulatory action of the agency. Payment for compensation is to 
be made from the annual appropriation of the agency causing the 
reduction in property value. For example, if the Secretary's 
application of the public interest review for activity in a 
Type B wetland causes denial of the permit, the Secretary's 
civil works appropriation will be the source of funds for 
compensation. Another example would be action taken through the 
section 404 permit process by the Secretary of the Interior or 
Secretary of Commerce under the Endangered Species Act that 
prohibits or limits use of property. In this case funds would 
come from the appropriation of the Interior or Commerce 
Department.
    New section 404(e) addresses general procedures to be 
followed in reviewing permit applications. The procedures 
include application of a ``sequential analysis'' for activities 
in Type A wetlands. This sequence requires that, to the maximum 
extent practicable, impacts on wetlands shall be avoided as the 
first step in the evaluation of the permit application. 
Associated with this approach is the presumption that there is 
a non-wetland alternative location for the activity. An example 
of where a presumption that there is a non-wetland alternative 
could be inappropriate is the development of oil and gas or 
other mineral deposits. If no non-wetland alternative is 
practicable, the sequence requires that impacts be minimized 
through such means as project redesign. Any remaining impacts 
would then be mitigated through the application of compensatory 
mitigation.
    The term ``sequential analysis'' as used here refers to the 
process described in the Memorandum of Agreement, dated 
February 6, 1990, between the Secretary and the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency. Application of the 
sequential analysis procedures shall supplement, but not 
replace, a review of impacts of the proposed activity on the 
public interest. For mining activities, mitigation requirements 
will be deemed to be satisfied where State-approved reclamation 
plans or permits are in effect if normal reclamation activities 
are included and if the activity results in net environmental 
benefits. Permits for activities in Type A wetlands may contain 
appropriate terms and conditions to prevent unacceptable 
wetlands losses.
    Permit applications for activities in Type B wetlands are 
evaluated through application of a ``public interest'' review 
which balances environmental, economic and social concerns and 
reaches a conclusion on issuance of a permit based on the 
weighing of reasonably foreseeable benefits and detriments 
associated with the proposal. Among the factors to be 
considered are mitigation costs, overall social, economic and 
recreational benefits, the ability of the applicant to provide 
mitigation, the degree of wetlands impact in the context of the 
total watershed, and whether impacts of the activity are 
permanent. Unless the Secretary can clearly demonstrate to the 
contrary, the project purpose as defined by the applicant shall 
be binding on the Secretary and, in the case of applications 
from public agencies, the applicant's definition of project 
purpose shall always be binding on the Secretary.
    In evaluating terms and conditions that are necessary to 
preserve wetland functions, the Secretary shall consider new 
technologies and methods which have potential for reducing 
adverse impacts while providing a productive, cost-effective 
use for recycled resources. One such method incorporates the 
use of portable road-building mats for temporary, all-weather 
roads across wetlands, streams and soft ground. The mats, which 
are made from recycled scrap tires, have been used successfully 
in the United States and in Canada in the construction, 
logging, oil and gas, mining and cross-country pipeline 
industries. The committee encourages the Secretary, where 
practicable, to use or encourage contractors to use such 
portable road building mats made from scrap tires and to 
encourage permit applicants to consider this and other new 
technologies.
    Requirements for compensatory mitigation are addressed in 
detail in the legislation. These are applicable to activities 
in Type B and Type A wetlands when the Secretary determines 
that compensatory mitigation is appropriate in such wetlands. 
Mitigation shall not be required where the Secretary finds that 
adverse impacts to wetlands will be temporary or incidental. 
Mitigation requirements shall be determined based on the 
specific impact of the proposed activity at the site of such 
activity, not on the impacts of prior activities or activities 
occurring at different locations. The Secretary is to issue 
regulations applicable to mitigation requirements for permits 
issued under this section. Among the considerations to be 
addressed are allowance for mitigation through changes in 
project design as well as through compensatory actions; 
mitigation through the enhancement or restoration of degraded 
wetlands; mitigation through contribution to a mitigation bank; 
circumstances where off-site mitigation would be appropriate; 
contributions of in-kind value; construction of coastal wetland 
protection and enhancement projects; and circumstances where 
out-of-kind mitigation would be appropriate.
    In certain instances, the Secretary may determine that 
compensatory mitigation is not required. These instances 
include a finding that: there are limited adverse impacts 
associated with the permitted activity; practicable and 
reasonable means of providing mitigation are not available; 
wetlands functions are provided in the area of the permitted 
activity in relative abundance such that wetlands functions 
will continue to occur, taking into account project-specific 
and cumulative impacts; the adverse wetland impacts are 
temporary; and hardship factors limit the applicant's ability 
to provide mitigation.
    The use of ``mitigation banks'' is authorized as an 
additional means of accomplishing compensatory mitigation for 
activities under this title. Such banks will provide a greater 
degree of flexibility to the Secretary and to applicants in 
finding means of assuring that permitted activities do not 
result in significant wetlands losses. These procedures are 
similar to those proposed by the Administration in March 1995. 
The Secretary is required to issue regulations within 6 months. 
Such regulations are to address requirements that assure that 
chemical, physical and biological functions lost through 
permitted activities are compensated. Emphasis is to be placed 
on providing for in-kind replacement and proximity to the 
affected watershed to the extent that this is feasible and 
makes sense environmentally. This provision is not intended, 
however, to preclude out-of-kind mitigation where circumstances 
warrant. Mitigation banks may be operated by a public or 
private entity as long as such entity has the financial 
capability to assure the long-term viability of the bank. The 
means of determining wetland impacts and bank debit amounts are 
to be based on scientifically sound and consistent methods. 
Arrangements for mitigation banks are to provide for the 
transfer of credits for mitigation to be accomplished in the 
future as well as for mitigation that has already taken place.
    Deadlines for making decisions on permit issuance are 
included to give certainty to applicants and discipline to the 
regulatory program. Except for circumstances involving 
compliance with other federal law, such as the National 
Environmental Policy Act, the Secretary must take final action 
within 90 days of receipt of a complete permit application for 
an individual permit; otherwise the permit shall be presumed to 
be issued in accordance with the proposal's description as 
contained in the application. If the application's is not 
complete, the applicant must be notified within 15 days of 
receipt and must be advised of the additional information that 
is required. The applicant is also given a role in determining 
when the permit application is complete. Once the applicant 
advises the Secretary that the application is complete, the 
Secretary must either take final action on the application 
within 90 days or, if the application does not contain all of 
the requested information, deny the application, without 
prejudice, within 30 days. This will provide greater certainty 
to applicants regarding the status of their application. It 
will also place greater emphasis on advising the applicant of 
additional information that is required to evaluate the 
proposal and will result in more accurate statistics on the 
regulatory program.
    Activities occurring in Type C wetlands are those that do 
not impact wetland functions sufficiently to warrant the 
exercise of federal regulatory authority under this title. 
While such activities may be addressed under State and local 
regulatory programs, they do not require a federal permit under 
this title.
    States in which there are substantial conserved wetlands 
warrant regulatory procedures and restrictions that are 
commensurate to the relative abundance of wetlands within the 
State. For example, in the State of Alaska there is estimated 
to be 172,000,000 acres of remaining wetlands, more than the 
remaining wetlands in the other 49 states combined. An 
extremely small fraction of the State's historical wetlands 
base has been lost. Those losses are estimated to be less than 
200,000 acres. In cases such as this, permit applicants should 
have the option of regulatory review procedures that reflect 
the abundance of wetlands in the State. Procedures in this case 
will preclude requirements to avoid activities in wetlands. In 
addition, compensatory mitigation shall not be required and 
requirements for minimization of impacts shall be contingent on 
such minimization being economically practicable. Further, 
where activities occur on economic base lands in a State with 
substantial conserved wetlands, the Secretary is directed to 
issue permits that do not require minimization where the 
interests of economic development so warrant where Alaska 
Native lands are involved.
    Provisions in existing law to authorize the use of 
``general permits'' to streamline and shorten the review time 
for certain activities are retained and modified to facilitate 
use of this approach. General permits may apply to activities 
that are similar in nature and that do not have significant 
adverse effects when considered singly and cumulatively. For 
those inquiries that require the Secretary to determine whether 
the provisions of a general permit apply, the Secretary must 
make the determination and advise the applicant within 30 days; 
otherwise the application shall be deemed to be approved. 
Compensatory mitigation may be required for activities approved 
under general permits and, as with individually issued permits, 
mitigation requirements shall be determined based on the 
specific impact of the proposed activity at the site of such 
activity, not on the impacts of prior activities or activities 
occurring at different locations. In States with substantial 
conserved wetlands, such as the State of Alaska, the Secretary 
shall issue general permits when requested to do so by a State 
or local authority; such permits will not contain compensatory 
mitigation and avoidance requirements, but may contain 
requirements for minimization of adverse effects.
    While certain provisions (such as those relating to wetland 
classifications and delineations in new subsections 404 (c) and 
(g) and the sequential analysis addressed in new subsection 
404(e)(2)) are applicable to activities in wetlands, this title 
also applies to activities in waters of the United States that 
do not satisfy the criteria used to delineate wetlands, such as 
streams, rivers, and lakes. The regulation of activities in 
these areas shall be evaluated using the ``public interest'' 
balancing requirements as described for use in evaluating 
activities occurring in Type B wetlands. The procedural reforms 
in this title are to apply to activities in non-wetland areas. 
While this is clarified in most provisions of the bill through 
use of phrases such as ``or waters of the United States,'' the 
committee reiterates that procedural reform provisions of this 
title apply to activities in such areas. These provisions 
include, but are not necessarily intended to be limited to the 
following: the Secretary's authority to issue permits and 
impose conditions to permits (including the requirements for 
compensatory mitigation), determinations of project purpose, 
mitigation banking, processing of permit applications and 
deadlines for final actions, general permits, activities not 
requiring permits, administrative appeals, procedures 
applicable to rulemaking, enforcement and violations, 
assumption of regulatory programs by States, administrative 
provisions contained in new section 404(m), and definitions.
    New section 404(f) replaces existing section 404(f) to 
modify the categories of activities that do not require permits 
under this title. A modification is necessary to clarify 
congressional intent where agency and judicial interpretations 
have resulted in regulatory expansion beyond the original 
statute. The list of activities not originally envisioned as 
being regulated as ``discharges of dredged or fill material'' 
has grown to the point that a complete revision of the listing 
of exempted activities is necessary. While many of these 
activities merely repeat the exemptions under existing law or 
are a codification or clarification of existing regulatory 
exemptions taken through administrative action, several new 
activities are added to reflect the committee's views on 
routine, minor work that should not be regulated under this 
title. Reflecting the above factors, the groups of activities 
that do not require permits include activities such as: normal 
agricultural activities whether they be farming, silviculture, 
aquaculture or ranching; maintenance and emergency 
reconstruction of facilities for flood control, water supply 
reservoirs, transportation structures and utility lines; 
construction and maintenance of farm, stock and aquaculture 
ponds, wastewater retention features of certain feedlot 
operations, and irrigation canals and drainage ditches; 
activities to preserve and enhance aviation safety or to 
prevent an airport hazard; temporary sedimentation basins for 
construction projects and dredged material disposal areas in 
upland areas; and farm, forest, mining and utility access roads 
and short railroad lines, where such roads and railroad lines 
include application of best management practices; activities 
carried out in farmed wetlands where land use changes intended 
to circumvent regulatory requirements of this section are not 
involved; and activities that result from a State approved 
management plan, are consistent with a State or local land 
management plans approved by the Secretary, are in connection 
with a State-approved marsh management and conservation program 
in Louisiana, or are excluded under an approved State coastal 
zone management program.
    Activities undertaken in areas that may technically satisfy 
wetland delineation criteria, where one or more criteria result 
from human alterations or human induced alterations to the 
area's hydrology, are also exempt unless such areas have 
exhibited wetlands functions for more than 5 years. For 
example, areas adjacent to road fills and other engineered 
works that lack properly designed or maintained drainage 
facilities such that the creation of wetlands is an incidental 
result of the work may technically satisfy wetland delineation 
criteria prescribed in this title. However, since such areas 
are not intended to result in the creation of wetlands, 
activities in them shall not be subject to this section unless 
the areas have performed wetland functions for more than 5 
years.
    Activities intended to preserve and enhance aviation safety 
or to prevent an airport hazard are also exempt. This 
exemption, however, shall not preclude the applicability of the 
National Environmental Policy Act or other federal laws that 
may be applicable to projects such as construction of new 
runways. An example of work to be exempt from regulation under 
this provision is the clearing of vegetation blocking the 
control tower's view of the runway approach zone. The provision 
is intended to address situations such as this, not as a 
mechanism to bypass existing environmental requirements for 
construction of new runway projects at airports.
    Additional activities that do not require permits under 
this section include certain federal or State-approved mining 
activities where any required reclamation is completed within 5 
years of commencement of mining activities and activities 
associated with the placement of piling and related structural 
members for bridges, utility lines, piers, lighthouses, and 
houses built on stilts to reduce flooding and similar 
structures. Activities in States with substantially conserved 
wetlands, such as the State of Alaska, also do not require 
permits if they are to provide for critical infrastructure 
needs, are associated with log transfer facilities, are for 
certain tailings impoundments, or are for ice pads and roads.
    New section 404(g) provides the rules for delineating 
wetlands for purposes of this title. One of the most 
controversial and least understood aspects of this regulatory 
program is the geographic limits of federal regulatory 
jurisdiction as measured by ``wetlands.'' Scientists and 
regulatory professionals have debated the limits of federal 
jurisdiction for decades. While the committee does not presume 
to address wetlands as that term may relate to non-regulatory 
Federal programs, State and local regulatory programs, 
scientific study, academic endeavors and general conservation 
goals, it does intend to establish a reasonable relationship 
between water and the limits of federal regulation under this 
title. The Committee has heard criticisms of its efforts to 
establish such a relationship and its determination that 
regulatory jurisdiction be based upon specific criteria and 
parameters as not being ``scientific'' and as something that 
Congress cannot and should not define. The Committee's 
conclusion is that, while technical experts, regulatory 
personnel, and special interest groups may debate the use of 
specific criteria (especially ones with which they do agree), 
the establishment of geographic limits of federal regulatory 
jurisdiction is very much a policy matter that is Congress's 
responsibility to address. In addition to a closer nexus to 
water, the rules for delineating federal regulatory wetlands 
must be reasonable, consistent and understandable by the 
regulated public. The delineation criteria must remove the 
uncertainty that has plagued property owners for years due to 
changing wetlands delineation criteria and inconsistent 
application.
    The Secretary, in consultation with other federal agencies 
shall promulgate rules within one year for delineating lands as 
wetlands for purposes of this title. These rules may not result 
in an area being determined as ``wetland'' unless (1) there is 
clear evidence of three indicators: wetlands hydrology, 
hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil being present during the 
period in which the wetland delineation is made (which shall 
normally be made during the growing season); (2) vegetation 
classified as hydrophytic is more adapted to wet soil 
conditions than to dry soil conditions; (3) some obligate 
wetlands vegetation is present during the period of delineation 
(unless it has been removed in order to avoid jurisdiction 
under this title); (4) water is found to be present at the 
surface for at least 21 consecutive days during the growing 
season for a majority of years for which data is available; and 
(5) the area is not a wetland that is temporarily or 
incidentally created as a result of adjacent development 
activity. Rules promulgated by the Secretary shall also provide 
that current circumstances be used to delineate wetlands, 
provided that such circumstances have not been altered by 
activity prohibited under this title. To preclude excessive 
burdens on county, parish and borough governments having an 
abundance of wetlands, a cap of 20% is placed on the amount of 
wetlands in those jurisdictions that can be classified as Type 
A wetlands. Such wetlands in excess of the cap that would 
otherwise be classified as Type A shall be classified as Type B 
wetlands.
    Special rules are established for wetland delineations on 
agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural lands. 
Wetlands on such lands are to be delineated solely by the 
Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the standards 
established by the Secretary of the Army through rulemaking. 
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, has expertise and 
capability to conduct these delineations. Authorizing the 
Secretary of Agriculture to make delineations in agricultural 
areas and associated nonagricultural areas will end an era of 
confusion and frustration for agricultural land owners who have 
been subjected to conflicting wetlands programs under section 
404 provisions and provisions of Title XII of the Food Security 
Act of 1985 (``Swampbuster''). Areas that the Secretary of 
Agriculture determines to be exempt from the requirements of 
the Swampbuster program or that the Secretary determines to be 
exempt as a result of an appeal under Swampbuster shall also be 
exempt from regulation under this title. Such exemption from 
the requirements for section 404 permits shall remain in effect 
as long as such areas are used as agriculture lands.
    New section 404(h) requires public notice, including 
notices for posting near property records for site-specific 
information, of information relating to wetlands delineation, 
wetlands classification, and enforcement actions. For wetland 
delineations and classifications, notice will be made by the 
Secretary or, in the case of agricultural lands and associated 
nonagricultural lands, the Secretary of Agriculture. For 
enforcement actions, notice shall be made by the Secretary and 
shall be filed with the affected property records.
    The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
undertake a project to develop maps indicating the extent of 
wetlands in the United States delineated in accordance with the 
requirements of this title and wetland classifications in 
accordance with rules promulgated by the Secretary for that 
purpose. This mapping project is to be complete within 10 
years; however, the Secretaries are directed to accomplish this 
effort in less time if applicable. This mapping project is not 
intended to result in all cases in maps that are of sufficient 
detail to be used as the sole source of information for making 
regulatory decisions under this title; rather, they are 
intended to provide guidance to property owners, prospective 
permit applicants, Federal, State and local governments, 
regulatory personnel and the public and to supplement more 
detailed case-by-case decisions that may be required. The 
Committee directs the Secretaries to use existing data and 
resources to the maximum extent practicable in preparing these 
wetlands maps. As part of the mapping project, the Secretaries 
are to make maximum use of public notices and public hearings 
prior to finalizing the maps and shall assure widespread 
dissemination of information on completed maps.
    New section 404(i) establishes an administrative process 
for the appeal of regulatory actions by the Secretary, 
including jurisdictional determinations, wetlands 
classification, decisions regarding the applicability of 
exemptions from permit requirements, the applicability of 
general permits to particular proposals, permit denials, 
conditions imposed in permits, and certain enforcement orders. 
Persons filing an appeal must do so within 30 days of the 
Secretary's action prompting the appeal and a decision on the 
appeal must be rendered within 90 days after filing. Persons 
providing written comment on any regulatory action mentioned 
above that involves a public comment process may participate in 
the appeal process on any issue raised in their written 
comment. The decisionaker on matters brought to appeal shall be 
an impartial federal official who has not participated in the 
regulatory process leading to the appeal. Until a final 
decision is made on the appeal, the person filing the appeal 
shall not be required to pay any penalty or perform any 
mitigation or restoration that would otherwise be required.
    New section 404(j) establishes deadlines and transition 
rules for the issuance of regulations implementing this title, 
including those relating to wetland delineation and 
classification, State and local land management plans that 
relate to exemptions from permit requirements, individual and 
general permits, enforcement actions, guidelines applicable to 
navigational dredging, and other rules that may be necessary. 
The Secretary must issue interim regulations within 90 days and 
final regulations within 1 year.
    One of the principal reforms of this title is to place 
management responsibility and accountability to the Congress 
and the public in the hands of a single agency. Except where 
otherwise specified, this title shall be administered by the 
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers. 
Due to the unique yet extensive nature of agricultural lands 
and regulated activity on such lands, the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall be the sole agency making wetland 
delineations on agricultural lands and associated 
nonagricultural lands. These reforms will bring consistency and 
predictability to this program and eliminate interagency 
second-guessing.
    New section 404(k) describes procedures for enforcement, 
including conditions under which actions may be brought against 
unauthorized activities for civil penalties and criminal fines. 
Although much of this section is from existing law, several 
changes have been made. Regarding compliance orders: orders 
issued by the Secretary must be based on reliable and 
substantial information and can only be made after reasonable 
inquiry; persons disputing the Secretary's action may file an 
appeal and the Secretary must either pursue a civil action or 
rescind the order within 60 days; and if there is no appeal, 
the Secretary must take final action within 150 days. For civil 
penalties, changes include a requirement that the period during 
which civil monetary penalties accrue commences at the end of 
the compliance period (up to 30 days after receipt of the 
compliance order) or, if an appeal is filed, 30 days after 
denial of such an appeal. The amount of the penalty shall not 
exceed $25,000 per day for each violation but the exact amount 
shall be in proportion to the scale or scope of the project. 
Changes to procedures and requirements for criminal penalties 
include a requirement that a violation has resulted in actual 
degradation of the environment and a requirement that action 
may be brought only by the Attorney General.
    New section 404(l) creates a more flexible program for 
State assumption of the section 404 program or parts of the 
program. This is consistent with one of the legislation's 
central themes of encouraging a greater role for State and 
local governments in the decision making in and the management 
of water pollution programs affecting the States. The majority 
of these provisions are from existing law; however, several 
changes have been incorporated, including greater opportunity 
to assume the program within geographic subdivisions of the 
State, and periodic reviews of State performance under 
delegated programs rather than an ad-hoc approach that creates 
uncertainty. The committee directs the Secretary to encourage 
States to assume greater roles in the regulation of activities 
under this title that occur within State boundaries and to 
expedite the review and approval of State proposals. In 
addition, States may seek funds from grants made under section 
106 of the FWPCA, as modified by this Act, for purposes of 
administering delegated section 404 programs.
    New section 404(m) contains a number of provisions relating 
to administration of the program, several of which are from 
existing law. The provisions (1) emphasize the right of States 
to control activities in waters within their jurisdiction, 
including the activities of federal agencies; (2) require 
permit applications and permits be made available for public 
information; (3) require publication of all regulations, 
memoranda of agreement and guidance associated with this 
program in the Federal Register; (4) deem activities associated 
with cranberry production to be in compliance with key 
provisions of existing law, under certain conditions; (5) 
prohibit any increase in regulatory fees; (6) require the 
Secretary to balance wetlands conservation with economic growth 
in implementing this title and to minimize adverse effects on 
property values; (7) require the development of a procedures to 
address regulatory requirements for emergency conditions; (8) 
clarify that the use of property is limited by an agency action 
if a legal right to use that property no longer exists because 
of the action; (9) preclude federal regulatory jurisdiction 
from being applied in cases where such application would be 
based solely on the use or potential use by migratory birds; 
and (10) provide for a transition from the existing regulatory 
regime to the changes put into effect by this title. Transition 
provisions include (1) a requirement that all permits issued 
after the effective date of this title be issued in accordance 
with this title; (2) a provision that previously issued permits 
continue in force; (3) an allowance for reconsideration of 
previously issued permits under the new regulatory procedures, 
if requested by the permittee, regarding the extent of 
regulatory jurisdiction or conditions imposed under a permit; 
and (4) requirements applicable to activities for which permits 
have been previously denied.
    Section 404(m) also contains a number of definitions of 
terms used in the new section 404. One of the most significant 
terms is ``activity'' as used throughout this title, which 
means the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of 
the United States, including wetlands, or the draining, 
channelization, or excavation of wetlands. By using this term, 
this would be the first legislation to recognize actions other 
than the discharge of dredged or fill materials that have 
potential for the degradation of water quality and wetland 
functions. Other defined terms are ``agency'', ``agency 
action'', ``agricultural land'', ``conserved wetlands'', 
``economic base lands'', ``fair market value'', ``law of a 
State'', ``mitigation bank'', ``navigational dredging'', 
``property'', ``Secretary'', ``State with substantial conserved 
wetlands areas'', and ``wetlands''.
    Section 804 includes definitions used in section 502 of the 
FWPCA, including ``wetlands'', ``creation of wetlands'', 
``enhancement of wetlands'', ``fastlands'', ``wetlands 
functions'', ``growing season'', ``incidentally created 
wetlands'', ``maintenance'', ``mitigation banking'', ``normal 
farming, silviculture, aquaculture and ranching activities'', 
``prior converted cropland'', ``restoration'', ``temporary 
impacts'', and ``airport hazard''. This section also amends 
section 502 of existing law by making conforming changes to the 
existing definition of ``pollutant''.
    Section 805 amends section 309 of existing law to include 
conforming changes to reflect that wetlands enforcement 
provisions are to be centrally located in section 404 and 
implemented by the Secretary.
    Section 806 provides that this title and its amendments are 
effect 90 days after enactment of this Act.

                    TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

    Title IX modifies the regulatory provisions of the Marine 
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to reassign 
responsibility for administering those provisions from the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to the 
Secretary of the Army. Consistent with a central theme of Title 
VIII, the committee believes that the regulation of the 
transportation and disposal of material in ocean waters should 
be managed by a single agency and is designating the Secretary, 
acting through the Chief of Engineers, as the lead federal 
agency.
    Section 901 states that amendments made by this title are 
to be considered as changes to the Marine Protection, Research, 
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
    Section 902 amends existing section 102 (relating to the 
transportation and dumping of material, other than dredged 
material, into ocean waters) by designating the Secretary of 
the Army as being the principal federal agency implementing the 
section, rather than the Administrator of the EPA.
    Section 903 amends existing section 103 (relating to the 
transportation and dumping of dredged material into ocean 
waters) by designating the Secretary of the Army as being the 
principal federal agency implementing the section, rather than 
the Administrator of the EPA.
    Section 904 amends existing section 104 (relating to 
conditions on ocean dumping permits) by designating the 
Secretary of the Army as being the principal federal agency 
implementing the section, rather than the Administrator of the 
EPA.
    Section 905 amends existing section 104A (relating to 
dumping of municipal sludge in the New York Bight Apex) by 
designating the Secretary of the Army as being the principal 
federal agency implementing the section, rather than the 
Administrator of the EPA.
    Section 906 specifies that references to the Administrator 
of EPA in any federal law with respect to any function 
transferred from EPA to the Secretary pursuant to this title 
shall be deemed as a reference to the Secretary of the Army.

                          Miscellaneous Issues

    The Committee does not intend this bill to amend, repeal, 
supersede or otherwise modify the application of Section 214(g) 
of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) (P.L. 98-
67, Section 214(g)). It is the intent of the Committee that the 
exemption contained therein shall remain in full force and 
effect. The Committee notes that representatives of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency have reviewed the relevant 
provisions of this bill and concur in the view that CBERA 
Section 214(g) is not affected by H.R. 961, as reported.
    The Committee recognizes that all indirect dischargers to a 
POTW must comply with all aspects and requirements of the Clean 
Water Act, including compliance with applicable pretreatment 
requirements, whether the indirect discharger that introduces 
pollutants to the treatment works is a municipality or special 
district which collects wastewater from individual indirect 
dischargers or whether the indirect discharger that introduces 
pollutants to the treatment works is itself an industrial 
facility.
    During the Committee's mark-up of H.R. 961, several 
amendments addressing the issue of environmental justice were 
offered, but withdrawn. The Committee did not include specific 
environmental justice provisions in H.R. 961 because the 
Committee believes that there is adequate flexibility in the 
current Act to address environmental justice concerns. The 
Committee encourages EPA to take into account disadvantaged, 
low-income, and high-risk populations when implementing the 
Act, including in the development of water quality criteria and 
the collection of data.

               Hearings and Previous Legislative Activity

    H.R. 961, the ``Clean Water Amendments of 1995,'' was 
introduced by Congressman Bud Shuster along with 15 additional 
bipartisan cosponsors, on February 15, 1995. The bill was 
referred solely to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. The legislation reflects the theme of 
devolution in authority over the nation's waters by increasing 
the role of State and local governments in the decision making 
process, and emphasizes flexibility and accountability.
    During the 103rd Congress the former Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation's Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment held 12 hearings on Clean Water Act (CWA) 
reauthorization issues including: (1) funding and 
infrastructure; (2) point source regulation; (3) nonpoint 
source regulation; and (4) wetlands. H.R. 961 originated in the 
103rd Congress last spring as the ``Bipartisan Alternative.'' 
The Bipartisan Alternative was produced in response to a bill 
drafted by then-Chairman Norm Mineta and Congressman Sherwood 
Boehlert (H.R. 3948).
    A bipartisan coalition of Committee members had strong 
objections to H.R. 3948, based largely on its command-and-
control nature and the top-down decision power given to the 
Federal EPA. The coalition used the base structure of H.R. 3948 
to craft the Bipartisan Alternative, but broadened its appeal 
by including additional input from State and local governments, 
industry, agriculture, and other affected stakeholders. The 
coalition's bill provided greater flexibility to State and 
local governments and fewer regulatory provisions, while it 
retained H.R. 3948's provisions on infrastructure and program 
funding. Ultimately, however, neither bill was considered or 
ever reported out of Subcommittee.
    In the 104th Congress, the newly named Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure included CWA reform as a 
priority on its agenda. Chairman Shuster directed Committee 
staff to continue the outreach efforts begun with the 
Bipartisan Alternative, to solicit views on how best to address 
the problems of the CWA while continuing its successes in a 
manner reflective of current conditions, and to develop a 
comprehensive ``Bipartisan Initiative'' to be considered by the 
Committee within the first 100 days of the new Congress.
    Prior to any Subcommittee action, the Full Committee held a 
January 31, 1995, oversight hearing on State perspectives on, 
among other things, unfunded mandates, regulatory reform, block 
grants and privatization issues relating to transportation and 
infrastructure programs. The National Governors Association 
(NGA) and other State organizations and officials praised the 
overall intent and effect of the CWA, but called for numerous 
reforms to reflect current needs. In particular, Governor 
Nelson of Nebraska, testifying on behalf of NGA, called for 
improved approaches to nonpoint pollution and stormwater; 
increased flexibility and cost effectiveness; and a renewed 
federal commitment to the SRF. Other themes included realistic 
time frames, performance-based standards, and risk-based 
approaches to water quality.
    The Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, 
next, divided CWA issues into five major areas--wetlands, 
nonpoint sources, funding, point sources, and stormwater--and 
held seven additional hearings, seeking views and input from 
all interested parties and officials.
    The first Subcommittee hearing, held February 9, 1995, 
focused on State and local perspectives. The witness list 
included representatives from the National Conference of 
Mayors, National League of cities, National Governors 
Association, Association of State and Interstate Water 
Pollution Control Administrators and various State water 
agencies. The witnesses provided testimony on the importance of 
continued funding of the State Revolving Fund, the necessity of 
incorporating cost-effective criteria into the regulation 
adoption process, the need for flexibility at the local level 
to design water treatment programs that will most effectively 
serve to address the water quality issues for a locale, and the 
financial burdens imposed on communities by current CWA 
unfunded mandates.
    The second hearing, held February 16, 1995, provided a 
forum for perspectives on business and economic development. 
The witness list included representatives of various industries 
including manufacturing, forestry, transportation, 
construction, textiles and realty. In addition to expressing 
views similar to those voiced in the first hearing on SRF 
funding and permitting programs, these panelists emphasized the 
following: cost effective risk reduction as the driving 
principle behind development of water quality requirements; the 
application of sound, state-of-the-art scientific information 
for establishing water quality standards; and flexibility to 
encourage industries to adopt pollution prevention methods 
which contribute significant environmental benefits, through 
innovative technology variances and reductions in multi-media 
discharges.
    The third hearing, held February 21, 1995, was reserved for 
presentation of the Administration's views. The witness panel 
included representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The EPA 
testimony expressed the Administration's recognition of the 
importance of continued SFR funding; the need to increase the 
role of State and local authorities in the process of 
addressing water quality issues, particularly in the area of 
watershed management; and emphasized common sense approaches to 
address water quality issues by combining flexible cost-
effective methods with realistic expectations. USDA addressed 
nonpoint source pollution issues. The agency highlighted the 
successes of their current land management programs, and 
provided suggestions for improving watershed management 
programs by increased local participation, program flexibility 
and increased coordination between Federal and State agencies. 
The NOAA discussed the Coastal Zone Management Act, 
specifically the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 
1990, in relation to controlling nonpoint source pollution.
    The panels for the fourth hearing, held February 24, 1995, 
represented various agricultural interests, environmental 
groups, and both public and private utilities. The agriculture 
panelists addressed issues concerning policies regulating both 
point and nonpoint sources of pollution and wetlands, 
emphasizing, again, themes of local control; cost-effective 
practices; continued funding; and sound, scientific information 
to be used in setting standards. As to nonpoint source 
pollution prevention policies in the area of agriculture, 
specifically, the panelists agreed that the voluntary, 
incentive-based methods provided under the current CWA scheme 
were the most effective means to achieve increased water 
quality. Environmental groups presented their positions on, 
among other things, wet weather flows; toxic discharges; and 
pollution prevention aspects, contending that CWA reform 
required strengthened programs to address remaining water 
quality problems. They acknowledged that increased flexibility, 
such as pollutant trading, could be an effective tool in 
achieving improved water quality at lower cost. The utilities, 
while expressing specific concern over State water quality 
certification and federal facility compliance in the hydropower 
licensing process, emphasized the need for the CWA to ensure 
reasonable, balanced, non-duplicative, cost-effective and 
environmentally sound approaches to regulation of remaining 
sources of pollution.
    The fifth hearing, held March 7, 1995, involved six panels 
of witnesses providing testimony specifically on reform of the 
Section 404 wetlands permitting program, and property rights. 
As an overview, the hearings primarily revolved around reform 
of the individual permitting program, as opposed to the general 
permitting program. The query which dominated the hearing was 
whether Congress had intended to include wetlands regulation in 
the description of ``navigable waters'' in the original CWA, 
and if so, whether Congress envisioned the current wetlands 
regulatory scheme. Repeatedly, witnesses requested Congress to 
clarify its position concerning the definition of wetlands, the 
protection of property rights, and the fairness of current 
permit procedures.
    Witnesses of the six panels included private citizens and 
representives of agriculture; industry; Federal, State and 
local government; and environmental groups. Testimony from the 
hearings identified several areas of the current program which 
cause the greatest problems to the regulated community, and 
additionally, provided helpful suggestions to correct these 
problems. Specifically, and repeatedly cited, were the 
following concerns: the need for a definition of a wetlands, 
and a system of classification where variances in wetlands 
value are considered; streamlining of the wetlands permitting 
process to reduce the time and costs involved, in addition to 
eliminating multi-agency authority over wetlands regulation; 
recognition that the State should play a greater role in 
wetlands regulation due to the unique regional nature of the 
issues; the importance of funding for education and research on 
wetlands preservation, to provide incentives to voluntarily 
adopt wetlands protective measures, and to promote restoration 
and creation of wetlands, and finally, the dilemma concerning 
regulatory ``takings'' of private property and compensation. 
These concerns were identified by all panel participants at the 
hearings in some form; however, views differed as how best to 
resolve the issues.
    The sixth hearing, held March 9, 1995, provided a forum for 
members of Congress to express their views on a variety of 
regional, local and miscellaneous CWA issues. Representatives 
from federal and local government agencies, industry and 
environmental groups also participated by discussing clean 
water issues related to specific regions. The panel of 
Congressional members highlighted the flaws in the current 
regulatory scheme and discussed clean water proposals of 
interest to their districts. The regional panels provided 
testimony on clean water issues concerning, among other things, 
harbors and estuaries, the Great Lakes region, and the western 
arid States.
    The seventh, and final hearing, was held in Utica, New 
York, March 11, 1995. The testimony of the three panels, 
comprised of representatives from local government, industry, 
agriculture and environmental groups, addressed issues 
concerning the control of nonpoint source water pollution. 
Representatives of government, industry and agriculture 
advocated a more localized approach to nonpoint source 
pollution, emphasizing the need for flexible, voluntary State/
regional programs, and federal financial and technical 
assistance. Environmental representatives advocated 
strengthening the nonpoint source program to better control 
pollution from nonpoint runoff.
    In sum, H.R. 961's history dates back to the 103rd Congress 
and the development of H.R. 3948 and the Bipartisan 
Alternative. The deliberative process of the 104th Congress 
continued the extensive efforts made to provide a forum for 
development of H.R. 961 and for all interested parties to 
express their views and ensure a role in the legislative 
process. Although H.R. 961 could not accommodate every single 
view and suggestion offered, the bill does reflect the 
prevailing themes repeatedly expressed throughout the 
information gathering process.

                        Committee Consideration

    Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to include the total number of votes cast for and against on 
each rollcall vote on a motion to report and on any amendment 
offered to the measure or matter, and the names of those 
members voting for and against.

                 Menendez Substitute to Franks (17-39)

    This amendment relates to the permiting process for the 
discharge of dredged material from navigational dredging. 
Discharges subject to permitting under this section do not have 
to obtain section 404 permits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................  .........  Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................  .........  Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................  .........  Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             franks amendment navigational dredging (56-4)

    This amendment establishes a permitting process for 
navigational dredging and would reduce EPA's role in the 
permitting process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...         Y 
Mr. Bachus.....................         Y   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................         Y   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. Latourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................         Y   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........         Y 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......         Y 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         Y   Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 mineta waivers risk assessment (18-38)

    This amendment would require EPA conduct risk assessments 
before issuing or granting any site-specific permit 
modifications or waivers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......  .........
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......  .........
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Mr. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........  .........
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  boehlert srf amendment no. 6 (23-35)

    This amendment would establish a separate $500 million/year 
state revolving fund to provide loans to farmers, loggers, and 
others implementing measures to control nonpoint source 
pollution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Mr. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................  .........  Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 ehlers great lakes initiative (27-24)

    This amendment would strike language clarifying that the 
Great Lakes Initiative in section 118 of the Clean Water Act is 
merely guidance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         Y   Ms. Johnson......  .........
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................  .........  Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................         Y   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................  .........  Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................  .........  Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....  .........
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................      PASS   Mr. Wise.........  .........
Mr. Horn.......................  .........  Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  lipinski allocation formula (30-30)

    This amendment sought to reinstate the allotment formula 
that was in H.R. 961 as introduced.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         N 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......  .........
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 mineta risks and benefit-cost (20-28)

    This amendment limits the risks that can be used for 
comparison, changes the benefit-cost decision criterion, and 
strikes the retroactive application of the benefit-cost 
provisions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................  .........  Mr. LaTourette...  .........
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....  .........
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......  .........
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................  .........  Mr. Parker.......  .........
Mr. Deal.......................  .........  Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......  .........
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........  .........
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       mineta stormwater (23-31)

    This amendment modifies the existing section 402(p) 
stormwater program without repealing it as is done in H.R. 961.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................  .........  Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......  .........
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........  .........
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....  .........
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................  .........  Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................  .........  Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  young motion to table barcia (33-25)

    Barcia amendment was to reoffer Lipinski amendment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...         Y 
Mr. Bachus.....................  .........  Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         Y   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................         N   Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................         Y   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         N   Mr. Martini......  .........
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........  .........
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         N   Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......         Y 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         Y   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         N 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         N   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         N 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........         N 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  mineta title viii substitute (11-39)

    This amendment would strike Title VIII of H.R. 961 and 
replace it with alternative wetlands protection language.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......  .........
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................  .........  Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....  .........
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........  .........
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Mr. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................  .........  Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         N 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         N 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      GILCHRIST NAS STUDY (17-38)

    This amendment would strike Title VIII of H.R. 961 and 
limit further action on revisions to Section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act until after the National Academy of Sciences 
publishes results of its study on wetlands.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member          Voted 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................  .........  Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....  .........
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  borski title VIII substitute (13-36)

    This amendment would strike Title VIII of H.R. 961 and 
replace it with a wetlands permitting proposal prepared by 
certain state officials and omitting any provisions on the 
definition of takings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................  .........  Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................  .........  Mr. LaTourette...  .........
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         N   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................  .........  Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................  .........  Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....  .........
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             petri great lakes initiative amendment (34-18)

    This amendment provides that State water quality standards 
and policies must be consistent with guidance in the Great 
Lakes Initiative and provide a level of protection that is 
comparable to that guidance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................   Present   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         N   Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         N   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................  .........  Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........         Y 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         N 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......         Y 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         Y   Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         N 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         N   Mr. Traficant....  .........
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......  .........
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........  .........
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       NADLER NO CHLORINE (5-42)

    This amendment would have called on the pulp and paper 
industry to discontinue the use of chlorine in the making of 
paper products.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................  .........  Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................  .........  Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........  .........
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         N 
Mr. Emerson....................  .........  Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....  .........
Mrs. Fowler....................  .........  Mr. Tucker.......  .........
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........  .........
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     emerson cooling ponds (44-10)

    This amendment limits the need for new section 402 or 404 
permits when a discharge is into an area used for detention, 
retention, treatment, settling, conveyance or cooling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...         Y 
Mr. Bachus.....................         Y   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................         Y   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................         N   Mr. Laughlin.....  .........
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........         Y 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         N 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......  .........
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         N   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......         N 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........  .........
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      mineta amendment nps (14-38)

    This amendment would strike the nonpoint source pollution 
language in H.R. 961 and in its place insert language relating 
to nonpoint source pollution and enforceable measures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................  .........  Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....  .........
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................  .........  Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................  .........  Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....  .........
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     borski amendment czara (17-35)

    This amendment would modify rather than repeal the existing 
program under section 6217 of CZARA

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....  .........
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....  .........
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................  .........  Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    mineta amendment 301(h) (13-41)

    This amendment would delete provisions directing EPA to 
grant the City of San Diego a waiver from secondary sewage 
treatment under certain circumstances.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................   Present   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....  .........
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................  .........  Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         N   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         N 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrist..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                MINETA SKELETAL REAUTHORIZATION (17-41)

    This amendment would strike all of H.R. 961 after the 
enacting clause and insert a less comprehensive Clean Water Act 
reauthorization package focused on continued funding and 
stormwater and combined sewer overflow revisions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................  .........  Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             final passage of H.R. 961, as amended (42-16)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         Y   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................         Y   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................         N   Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................         Y   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         N   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........         Y 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         N 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......         Y 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         Y   Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         N 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................  .........  Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrist..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........         N 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    MINETA UNFUNDED MANDATES (18-40)

    This motion would have directed that the Committee report 
on H.R. 961 comply with the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 prior to the effective date contained in 
that Act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................  .........  Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................  .........  Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
specific oversight findings.

 Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on Government 
                          Reform and Oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure has received no such findings 
or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
that accompanies a measure providing new budget authority, new 
spending authority, or new credit authority or changing 
revenues or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as 
required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, as amended, and, when practicable with respect to 
estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of the total 
estimated funding levels for the relevant program (or programs) 
to the appropriate levels under current law.
    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires committees to include 
their own cost estimates in certain committee reports, which 
include, where practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the 
appropriate levels under current law.
    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                 Congressional Budget Office Estimates

    Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is 
timely submitted. The following is the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed preliminary cost estimate for H.R. 961, 
the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. We have not completed our 
analysis of all the costs of this bill because we do not yet 
have sufficient information to project the costs of some of the 
authorizations. CBO will provide the committee with complete 
cost projections as soon as they are available.
    Enactment of H.R. 961 would affect direct spending and 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to 
the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                         Robert A. Sunshine
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 961.
    2. Bill title: Clean Water Amendments of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure on April 6, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: This bill would amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), and would provide 
additional authorizations of appropriations to assist state and 
local governments in their efforts to correct water pollution 
problems. The bill also would authorize such sums as are 
necessary to continue Clean Water Act programs conducted by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, H.R. 961 
would repeal the current requirement for some local governments 
and industries to obtain permits to discharge stormwater 
runoff. Finally, the bill would replace the existing procedures 
and criteria for identifying and regulating wetlands.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Most of the 
spending that may occur under H.R. 961 would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds. For purposes of this 
estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted by the end 
of this fiscal year, and that all funds authorized by the bill 
for the 1996-2000 period will be appropriated. Estimated 
outlays are based on historical spending patterns of clean 
water programs administered by EPA. The following table 
summarizes the estimated budgetary impact for the bill's 
specified authorizations.
    The bill also would increase federal receipts from 
penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act, but these 
amounts would not be significant.
    The table below does not include any amounts of 
appropriated funds that might be necessary to compensate 
landowners because of the bill's amendments to section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act. It also does not include potential direct 
spending costs for the bill's provision that waives the federal 
government's sovereign immunity under the Clean Water Act. 
Costs for both of these provisions could be significant. 
Finally, the table does not include estimated authorizations 
for EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers to carry out their 
responsibilities under sections 517 and 404 of the act, 
respectively. CBO does not currently have sufficient 
information to estimate the budgetary impact of these 
provisions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizations of appropriations:                                                                               
    Specified authorizations.............................      3,801      3,501      3,551      3,597      3,647
    Estimated outlays....................................        341      1,432      2,586      3,243      3,544
    Estimated authorizations.............................        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\
    Estimated outlays....................................        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\
Direct spending:                                                                                                
    Estimated budget authority...........................        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\
    Estimated outlays....................................        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\
Estimated revenues.......................................        \2\        \2\        \2\        \2\        \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO has insufficient information to estimate these amounts.                                                 
\2\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         

    The costs of this bill fall primarily within budget 
function 300. Other budget functions, particularly defense 
(050), could be affected by the provision of the bill that 
waives the federal government's sovereign immunity under the 
Clean Water Act.
    6. Basis of estimate: Title I--Research and related 
programs. Section 102 would authorize appropriations of $250 
million over the 1996-2000 period for EPA to make grants to 
communities that are small or economically disadvantaged for 
planning, design, and construction of publicly owned treatment 
works (POTWs). An additional $250 million would be authorized 
over the five-year period for grants to state and local 
governments and nonprofit groups to research causes of water 
pollution, conduct technical training in water pollution 
abatement, and disseminate water pollution information. The 
bill would reauthorize EPA grants for assistance to state and 
interstate water pollution control programs, providing an 
authorization of $150 million annually over the five-year 
period. In addition, H.R. 961 would authorize a total of $25 
million for water sanitation grants to rural and Native Alaskan 
villages, $21 million annually over the 1996-2000 period for 
the ongoing Chesapeake Bay program, and $26 million annually 
over the same period for the continuing Great Lakes program.
    Title II--Construction grants. This title authorizes the 
appropriation of $300 million in 1996 for grants to fund water 
pollution infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, 
Louisiana, Bristol County, Massachusetts, and other communities 
with a population of less than 75,000. Half of this sum would 
be directed to communities with a severe need for wastewater 
treatment improvements. Under current law, federal construction 
grants made through Title II of the Clean Water Act cover 55 
percent of the total project cost. H.R. 961 would change the 
federal share to 80 percent.
    Title III--Standards and enforcement. Title III would 
change the way EPA established water quality criteria and 
standards, by requiring risk assessments and cost-benefit 
analysis before issuing new regulations. This title would 
revise the current program designed to control pollution from 
nonpoint sources, and would eliminate the stormwater permit 
program for discharges from municipalities and industries.
    Title III would authorize appropriations of $19 million 
annually over the 1996-2000 period to continue the National 
Estuary program, and an additional $10 million annually to 
support the existing Clean Lakes program.
    The bill would provide authorizations totalling $1 billion 
over the five-year period for grants to administer and 
implement land management practices and other projects to 
control nonpoint sources of pollution. In addition to these 
grants, the bill would authorize appropriations to state 
revolving loan funds to make loans for nonpoint source 
pollution control projects (see Title VI).
    H.R. 961 would define municipal and industrial stormwater 
discharges as a nonpoint source pollutant and would repeal the 
current stormwater permitting program. The bill would direct 
states to assess stormwater discharges and submit a program to 
manage such discharges for EPA approval. The goal of the new 
stormwater program is to attain water quality standards within 
15 years of EPA approval of each state's program. H.R. 961 
would authorize appropriations of $20 million annually over the 
1996-2000 period for grants to states to conduct stormwater 
research and demonstration programs.
    Section 316 would explicitly waive any federal immunity 
from administrative orders or civil or administrative fines or 
penalties assessed under Clean Water Act, and would clarify 
that federal facilities are subject to reasonable service 
charges assessed in connection with a federal or state program. 
This provision of the bill may encourage states to seek to 
impose fines and penalties against the federal government under 
the act. If federal agencies contest these fines and penalties, 
it is possible that payments would have to be made from the 
government's Claims and Judgments Fund, if not otherwise 
provided from appropriated funds. The Claims and Judgments Fund 
is a permanent, open-ended appropriation, and any amounts paid 
from it would be considered direct spending. CBO cannot predict 
the number or the dollar amount of judgments against the 
government that could result from enactment of this section. 
Further, it is impossible to determine whether those judgments 
would be paid from the Claims and Judgments Fund or from 
appropriated funds.
    H.R. 961 would provide that penalty assessments for 
violators of pollution laws be adjusted for inflation using the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The initial adjustment would occur 
no later than four years after the date of enactment of the 
bill; adjustments would be made every four years thereafter. 
CBO estimates that inflating penalty assessments would result 
in increased revenues of less than $500,000 annually.
    Title IV--Permits and licenses. This title would make 
several amendments to the National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System, and would codify EPA's current policy for 
controlling combined sewer overflows. In addition, the bill 
directs EPA to develop a national control policy for overflows 
from municipal separate sanitary sewers. No federal 
expenditures are explicitly authorized by this title, and CBO 
estimates that no significant additional resources would be 
needed to implement these changes.
    Title V--General provisions. This title would authorize 
appropriations of such sums as are necessary for conducting 
EPA's responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. Such funds 
would be in addition to the bill's specified authorizations, 
which are largely for grants to individual states and 
communities. CBO does not yet have sufficient information from 
EPA to estimate these amounts. Some costs would result from 
Title III's requirements regarding risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis of regulations expected to have an economic 
impact of $25 million or more annually. At the same time, the 
bill's provisions in Titles VIII and IX would save the agency 
about $40 million annually, because EPA would no longer have 
any responsibilities for wetlands or ocean dumping regulation.
    Title VI--State water pollution control revolving funds. 
EPA's major initiative for assisting local governments in 
complying with water treatment provisions of the Clean Water 
Act is the State Revolving Fund program (SRF). This title would 
authorize appropriations of $2.5 billion annually over the 
1996-2000 period for SRF grants. In addition, the bill would 
establish a new revolving fund to help pay for local management 
of nonpoint source water pollution. H.R. 961 would allow states 
to shift any part of their grant from EPA between these two 
revolving funds. Under current law, states may only use SRF 
grants to make loans to local communities for clean water 
infrastructure projects. Title VI would allow states to extend 
the payback period on these loans for certain communities, and 
would allow certain economically disadvantaged communities to 
receive a partial grant in addition to a loan to pay for the 
construction of clean water infrastructure projects through the 
SRF program.
    Title VII--Miscellaneous provisions. This title would 
authorize the appropriation of $50 million for grants to assist 
states along the U.S.-Mexican border with planning and 
constructing treatment works in U.S. border communities known 
as colonias. These communities were generally built without any 
water or wastewater infrastructure.
    Title VIII--Wetlands conservation and management. Title 
VIII would rewrite section 404 of the Clean Water Act to 
formalize the wetlands permitting process of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. While the amended law would still require 
persons who wish to develop or alter wetlands to seek a permit 
from the Corps, the process would be made more responsive to 
property owners by: (1) instituting deadlines for processing 
permit applications, (2) specifying new standards for defining 
and classifying wetlands (along with a hierarchy of allowable 
permit conditions that can be applied to each classification), 
(3) allowing more activities to be exempt from permitting or to 
be addressed through general (non-individual) permits, (4) 
establishing an administrative process under which property 
owners could appeal agency findings and decisions, and (5) 
creating a mechanism for compensating owners of affected lands 
(subject to the appropriation of the necessary funds). Finally, 
the bill would require the Corps and the Department of 
Agriculture to begin a 10-year project of mapping all regulated 
wetlands in the United States.
    CBO cannot estimate the major cost of this title--
compensation for landowners whose property values are affected 
by regulatory actions taken by the Corps under section 401. 
Under this title, the federal government would be required to 
compensate property owners when an agency action reduces the 
value of the affected portion of their land by 20 percent or 
more. The property owner would be able to seek compensation 
through (1) a written request to the agency, (2) binding 
arbitration, and/or (3) a civil action. In all cases, any 
compensation amount negotiated or awarded would be paid by the 
agency from operating funds. All obligations of the government 
for such compensation would be subject to the availability of 
appropriations. The ultimate cost of this provision would 
depend on future actions taken by the agency, affected property 
owners, and on the outcome of future arbitration and court 
proceedings. CBO does not currently have sufficient basis to 
estimate such costs.
    Also, this title would raise to $5,000 and $50,000, 
respectively, the minimum and maximum assessments for those 
subject to criminal fines for violating permit requirements. 
The current minimum and maximum fines are $2,500 and $25,000, 
respectively. The fine assessed for a second offense would be 
raised from $50,000 to $100,000 per day of violation. Based on 
information provided by EPA, CBO estimates that additional 
revenues from these changes would be less than $500,000 
annually.
    Any criminal fines collected would be deposited in the 
Crime Victims Fund and spent in the following year. Thus, 
direct spending from the fund would match the increase in 
revenues from criminal fines with a one-year lag. Because 
collections from ciminal fines are expected to be 
insignificant, increased direct spending from the fund would 
also be insignificant.
    Title IX--Navigational dredging. This title would amend the 
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to 
designate the Corps as the lead agency for regulating ocean 
dumping and dredging permits. We estimate that this title would 
have no significant impact on federal spending.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. Enactment of the bill would 
increase governmental receipts from civil, criminal, and 
administrative penalties, as well as direct spending from the 
Crime Victims Fund. CBO estimates that any amounts involved 
would be insignificant.
    Section 316 would explicitly waive any federal immunity 
from administrative orders, or civil or administrative fines or 
penalties assessed under the Clean Water Act, and would clarify 
that federal facilities are subject to reasonable service 
charges assessed in connection with a federal or state Clean 
Water Act program.
    This provision may encourage states to seek to impose fines 
and penalties against the federal government under the Clean 
Water Act. If federal agencies contest these fines and 
penalties, it is possible that payments would have to be made 
from the government's Claims and Judgments Fund, if not 
otherwise provided from appropriated funds. The Claims and 
Judgments Fund is a permanent, open-ended appropriation, and 
any amounts paid from it would be considered direct spending. 
CBO cannot predict either the number or the dollar amount of 
judgments against the government that could result from 
enactment of this bill. Further, it is impossible to determine 
whether such potential judgments would be paid from the Claims 
and Judgments Fund or from appropriated funds.
    8. Estimated cost to state and local governments: Major 
changes made by H.R. 961. From the perspective of state and 
local governments, this legislation would make several 
important changes to current law. It would authorize increased 
appropriations for the SRF program and modify the criteria 
governing eligibility for the program; codify EPA's current 
permitting policy for combined sewer overflow (CSO); repeal the 
Clean Water Act's provisions regarding permits for separate 
storm water discharges; and provide significant increases in 
money available for projects to reduce NPS pollution.
    State revolving funds. Title VI would authorize 
appropriations of $12.5 billion over 5 years for EPA grants to 
state revolving funds. (Funding for SRFs in fiscal year 1995 is 
$1.2 billion.) Under the bill, the projects and activities that 
are eligible for SRF assistance would be expanded. This title 
also would authorize appropriations of $0.5 billion annually 
over the 1996-2000 period for a new SRF and for grants 
dedicated to managing nonpoint source pollution.
    Title VI would authorize states to provide additional 
assistance to small cities and economically disadvantaged local 
governments with SRF funds. It would direct EPA and the states 
to establish simplified procedures for small communities to use 
to obtain SRF loans. This title would aid disadvantaged 
communities by authorizing states to extent SRF loan terms up 
to 40 years. Current law requires SRF loans to be repaid within 
20 years. In addition, the bill would allow states to make 
partial grants for clean water infrastructure projects to 
disadvantaged communities with SRF money. The current SRF 
program only provides loans.
    Combined sewer overflow. Section 407 of the bill would 
codify the CSO control policy issued by EPA on April 11, 1994. 
Under this policy, National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permits would be issued for up to 15 years to 
municipalities with combined storm and sanitary sewer systems 
that have a long-term plan to bring such discharges into 
compliance. Because enactment of this section would not change 
EPA's current policy, CBO estimates that this provision would 
not affect spending by municipalities over the next 5 years.)
    Some estimates of the total cost to correct CSO problems 
range from $40 billion to $100 billion over the next 20 years. 
EPA's estimate of the cost of correcting CSO problems is at the 
low end of this range. (Under the current policy, the agency 
estimates compliance costs for municipalities would average 
$3.5 billion annually over the next 15 years.)
    Storm water systems. Section 322 would call on states to 
establish new programs to manage municipal and industrial 
discharges of stormwater. The goal of these programs would be 
to ensure that stormwater discharges comply with the 
requirements of the Clean Water Act within 15 years following 
approval of state management plans. The new state programs 
would replace the current stormwater permitting system, which 
would be repealed by the bill. Title III authorizes 
appropriations of $20 million annually over the next 5 years to 
pay for grants to states to conduct research on stormwater 
discharge pollutants and demonstrate innovative solutions to 
solving this problem.
    EPA issued regulations in 1990 that govern the permitting 
of municipal separate storm sewer systems serving a population 
over 100,000, as well as storm water discharges associated with 
industrial activity. Phase II regulations are to cover 
municipal separate storm sewer systems serving fewer than 
100,000 people, and other light industrial, commercial, and 
residential facilities. EPA was required to issue regulations 
for storm water discharges from phase II facilities by October 
1, 1993--but has not done so. Depending on how the final phase 
II regulations are structured, EPA estimates that up to 82 
million people could be affected by the phase II stormwater 
program at an estimated cost to local governments of $1 billion 
to $3 billion annually under current law.
    The bill would repeal the phased permit systems that 
control stormwater discharges under current law, and would 
require EPA to issue technologically and financially feasible 
stormwater criteria by 2008. CBO believes that, over the long 
term, it is likely that repealing the storm water permit 
program would cost municipalities less than the permit program 
that would be developed under current law. But, based on 
information from EPA, CBO expects that it would take the agency 
3 to 5 years to issue final regulations for the phase II 
program. Therefore, we anticipate that any potential savings in 
municipal expenses for controlling stormwater would be small 
over the next 5 years.
    Nonpoint sources (NPS). This legislation would not impose 
significant additional spending requirements on states for 
dealing with nonpoint sources, which are largely in private 
hands. Nevertheless, the bill would authorize a large increase 
in federal assistance to states for developing and implementing 
management programs for controlling pollution added to waters 
from nonpoint sources. The bill would authorize appropriations 
of $1 billion over the 1996-2000 period for grants to state NPS 
programs. For 1995, EPA is allocating $100 million for this 
activity. Title III would increase the share of nonpoint source 
control projects that can be funded by federal grants from 60 
percent to 75 percent. In addition, Title VI would authorize 
$500 million annually over the next 5 years for grants to new 
state revolving funds for lands to public and private land 
owners carrying out management practices and measures under a 
state program for controlling nonpoint source pollution. These 
additional funds, if appropriated, would make possible greater 
state assistance to property owners for remedying nonpoint 
sources.
    Total grant funding. H.R. 961 would authorize 
appropriations for grants averaging $3.6 billion a year over 
the next five years, compared with about $2.1 billion 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995. Hence, state and local 
governments would receive 70 percent more federal assistance 
for compliance with the Clean Water Act if the amounts 
authorized are appropriated.
    In a significant departure from current law, H.R. 961 would 
link deadlines for state and local government compliance with 
Clean Water Act requirements for nonpoint source pollution 
control programs and for stormwater discharge control programs 
to the level of federal funding provided. Under the bill, if 
the amounts appropriated for these programs are less than the 
amounts authorized, compliance schedules would be pushed 
further into the future.
    State and local government clean water infrastructure 
needs. While the bill would authorize appropriations of grants 
to states that are substantially above current levels, it would 
not change the fact that most of the governmental costs for 
implementing the Clean Water Act are a state and local 
government responsibility. The primary cost to these 
governments of complying with the Clean Water Act is for 
constructing and operating projects for treating wastewater and 
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution.
    EPA conducts biennial surveys of the states that attempt to 
estimate the cost of infrastructure projects that are needed to 
comply with the Clean Water Act. EPA's 1992 Needs Survey 
concludes that local governments need to spend $137 billion 
over the next 20 years to build projects necessary to comply 
with the existing requirements of the Clean Water Act. 
Unfortunately, even this huge sum probably underestimates 
actual needs. From 1990 to 1992, EPA's estimate of the capital 
costs to build clean water infrastructure improvements rose 39 
percent (up $53 billion). EPA attributes most of this increase 
to improved documentation by states of their needs, and the use 
of models by EPA to include the full cost of combined sewer 
overflow improvements and partial costs for investments needed 
for urban storm water problems and for projects to reduce 
nonpoint source water pollution. As states improve their 
documentation of infrastructure needs, and EPA refines its 
models of undocumented needs, future needs surveys will likely 
describe even greater costs for complying with the Clean Water 
Act. The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution 
Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) estimates that $200 billion is 
required under current law to meet clean water infrastructure 
needs over the next 20 years.
    H.R. 961 would make a significant departure from current 
law, however, by linking the compliance schedules for two 
aspects of the Clean Water Act to the annual levels of federal 
funding provided to state and local governments for clean water 
planning, research, and infrastructure financing. First, the 
bill establishes a goal of attaining water quality standards 
within 15 years following approval of state nonpoint source 
control programs. This deadline would be extended by one year 
if annual appropriations for section 319 grants are less than 
the $1 billion authorized by the bill over the 1996-2000 
period. Second, the new state stormwater management programs 
that would be established by Title III also allow up to 15 
years following program approval for stormwater discharges to 
comply with the overall goals of the act. This deadline would 
slip by one year for every year that appropriations for grants 
to states to conduct stormwater discharge research and 
demonstration projects are less than the annual $20 million 
authorization specified in the bill. If EPA states agree that 
amounts appropriated for these activities are sufficient, but 
less than amounts authorized, EPA would not revise the 
compliance deadlines.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Kim Cawley, Deborah Reis, and 
Melissa Sampson.
    12. Estimate approved by: Peter Fontaine for Paul N. Van de 
Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                     inflationary impact statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on 
a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include an 
analytical statement describing what impact enactment of the 
measure would have on prices and costs in the operation of the 
national economy. The Committee has determined that H.R. 961 
has no inflationary impact on the national economy.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

                  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                    declaration of goals and policy

      Sec. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 
the Nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective it is 
hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this 
Act--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) it is the national policy that Federal financial 
        assistance be provided to construct publicly owned 
        waste treatment works and to reclaim waste water from 
        municipal and industrial sources;
          * * * * * * *
          (6) it is the national policy that a major research 
        and demonstration effort be made to develop technology 
        necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into 
        the navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone and 
        the oceans; [and]
          (7) it is the national policy that programs, 
        including public and private sector programs using 
        economic incentives, for the control of nonpoint 
        sources of pollution, including stormwater, be 
        developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so 
        as to enable the goals of this Act to be met through 
        the control of both point and nonpoint sources of 
        pollution[.];
          (8) it is the national policy to support State 
        efforts undertaken in consultation with tribal and 
        local governments to identify, prioritize, and 
        implement water pollution prevention and control 
        strategies;
          (9) it is the national policy to recognize, support, 
        and enhance the role of State, tribal, and local 
        governments in carrying out the provisions of this Act;
          (10) it is the national policy that beneficial reuse 
        of waste water effluent and biosolids be encouraged to 
        the fullest extent possible; and
          (11) it is the national policy that water use 
        efficiency be encouraged to the fullest extent 
        possible.
          * * * * * * *
      (g) It is the policy of Congress that the authority of 
each State to allocate quantities of water within its 
jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise 
impaired by this Act. It is the further policy of Congress that 
nothing in this Act shall be construed to supersede or abrogate 
rights to quantities of water which have been established by 
any State. Federal agencies shall co-operate with State and 
local agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to prevent, 
reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with programs for 
managing water resources and in accordance with section 510(b) 
of this Act.
  (h) Net Benefits.--It is the national policy that the 
development and implementation of water quality protection 
programs pursuant to this Act--
          (1) be based on scientifically objective and unbiased 
        information concerning the nature and magnitude of 
        risk; and
          (2) maximize net benefits to society in order to 
        promote sound regulatory decisions and promote the 
        rational and coherent allocation of society's limited 
        resources.
          * * * * * * *

          research, investigations, training, and information

      Sec. 104. (a) The Administrator shall establish national 
programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of 
pollution and as part of such programs shall--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (5) in cooperation with the States, and their 
        political subdivisions, and other Federal agencies 
        establish, equip, and maintain a water quality 
        surveillance system for the purpose of monitoring the 
        quality of the navigable waters and ground waters and 
        the contiguous zone and the oceans and the 
        Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, conduct 
        such surveillance by utilizing the resources of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
        Geological Survey, and the Coast Guard, and shall 
        report on such quality in the report required under 
        subsection (a) o