- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-26
======================================================================
WATER QUALITY INVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
_______
March 9, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1262]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 1262) to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for State
water pollution control revolving funds, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) In General.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Quality
Investment Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
1. Short title; table of contents.
2. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
TITLE I--WATER QUALITY FINANCING
Subtitle A--Technical and Management Assistance
1101. Technical assistance.
1102. State management assistance.
1103. Watershed pilot projects.
Subtitle B--Construction of Treatment Works
1201. Sewage collection systems.
1202. Treatment works defined.
Subtitle C--State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds
1301. General authority for capitalization grants.
1302. Capitalization grant agreements.
1303. Water pollution control revolving loan funds.
1304. Allotment of funds.
1305. Intended use plan.
1306. Annual reports.
1307. Technical assistance; requirements for use of American
materials.
1308. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle D--General Provisions
1401. Definition of treatment works.
1402. Funding for Indian programs.
Subtitle E--Tonnage Duties
1501. Tonnage duties.
TITLE II--ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS
2001. Pilot program for alternative water source projects.
TITLE III--SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS
3001. Sewer overflow control grants.
TITLE IV--MONITORING, REPORTING, AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SEWER
OVERFLOWS
4001. Monitoring, reporting, and public notification of sewer
overflows.
TITLE V--GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION
5001. Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern.
5002. Public information program.
5003. Contaminated sediment remediation approaches, technologies, and
techniques.
SEC. 2. 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 et seq.).
TITLE I--WATER QUALITY FINANCING
Subtitle A--Technical and Management Assistance
SEC. 1101. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) 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 ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations--
``(A) to provide technical assistance to rural and
small municipalities for the purpose of assisting, in
consultation with the State in which the assistance is
provided, such municipalities in the planning,
developing, and acquisition of financing for eligible
projects described in section 603(c);
``(B) to provide technical assistance and training
for rural and small publicly owned treatment works and
decentralized wastewater treatment systems to enable
such treatment works and systems to protect water
quality and achieve and maintain compliance with the
requirements of this Act; and
``(C) to disseminate information to rural and small
municipalities and municipalities that meet the
affordability criteria established under section
603(i)(2) by the State in which the municipality is
located with respect to planning, design, construction,
and operation of publicly owned treatment works and
decentralized wastewater treatment systems.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 104(u) (33 U.S.C.
1254(u)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and (6)'' and inserting ``(6)''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the following:
``; and (7) not to exceed $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2010 through 2014 for carrying out subsections (b)(3), (b)(8),
and (g), except that not less than 20 percent of the amounts
appropriated pursuant to this paragraph in a fiscal year shall
be used for carrying out subsection (b)(8)''.
(c) Small Flows Clearinghouse.--Section 104(q)(4) (33 U.S.C.
1254(q)(4)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$3,000,000''; and
(2) in the second sentence by striking ``1986'' and inserting
``2011''.
SEC. 1102. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
1991 through 2009, and $300,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2010 through 2014;''.
SEC. 1103. WATERSHED PILOT PROJECTS.
(a) Pilot Projects.--Section 122 (33 U.S.C. 1274) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``WET WEATHER''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``wet weather discharge'';
(B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``in reducing such
pollutants'' and all that follows before the period at
the end and inserting ``to manage, reduce, treat, or
reuse municipal stormwater, including low-impact
development technologies''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Watershed partnerships.--Efforts of municipalities and
property owners to demonstrate cooperative ways to address
nonpoint sources of pollution to reduce adverse impacts on
water quality.
``(4) Integrated water resource plan.--The development of an
integrated water resource plan for the coordinated management
and protection of surface water, ground water, and stormwater
resources on a watershed or subwatershed basis to meet the
objectives, goals, and policies of this Act.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 122(c)(1) is amended by
striking ``for fiscal year 2004'' and inserting ``for each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2014''.
(c) Report to Congress.--Section 122(d) is amended by striking ``5
years after the date of enactment of this section,'' and inserting
``October 1, 2011,''.
Subtitle B--Construction of Treatment Works
SEC. 1201. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.
Section 211 (33 U.S.C. 1291) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``(a) No'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 211. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.
``(a) In General.--No'';
(2) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Population Density.--''
after ``(b)''; and
(3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Exceptions.--
``(1) Replacement and major rehabilitation.--Notwithstanding
the requirement of subsection (a)(1) concerning the existence
of a collection system as a condition of eligibility, a project
for replacement or major rehabilitation of a collection system
existing on January 1, 2007, shall be eligible for a grant
under this title if the project otherwise meets the
requirements of subsection (a)(1) and meets the requirement of
paragraph (3).
``(2) New systems.--Notwithstanding the requirement of
subsection (a)(2) concerning the existence of a community as a
condition of eligibility, a project for a new collection system
to serve a community existing on January 1, 2007, shall be
eligible for a grant under this title if the project otherwise
meets the requirements of subsection (a)(2) and meets the
requirement of paragraph (3).
``(3) Requirement.--A project meets the requirement of this
paragraph if the purpose of the project is to accomplish the
objectives, goals, and policies of this Act by addressing an
adverse environmental condition existing on the date of
enactment of this paragraph.''.
SEC. 1202. TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.
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''.
Subtitle C--State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds
SEC. 1301. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.
Section 601(a) (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended by striking ``for
providing assistance'' and all that follows through the period at the
end and inserting the following: ``to accomplish the objectives, goals,
and policies of this Act by providing assistance for projects and
activities identified in section 603(c).''.
SEC. 1302. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.
(a) Reporting Infrastructure Assets.--Section 602(b)(9) (33 U.S.C.
1382(b)(9)) is amended by striking ``standards'' and inserting
``standards, including standards relating to the reporting of
infrastructure assets''.
(b) Additional Requirements.--Section 602(b) (33 U.S.C. 1382(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``before fiscal year 1995'';
(B) by striking ``funds directly made available by
capitalization grants under this title and section
205(m) of this Act'' and inserting ``assistance made
available by a State water pollution control revolving
fund as authorized under this title, or with assistance
made available under section 205(m), or both,''; and
(C) by striking ``201(b)'' and all that follows
through ``513'' and inserting ``211 and 511(c)(1)'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) the State will establish, maintain, invest, and credit
the fund with repayments, such that the fund balance will be
available in perpetuity for providing financial assistance in
accordance with this title;
``(12) any fees charged by the State to recipients of
assistance that are considered program income will be used for
the purpose of financing the cost of administering the fund or
financing projects or activities eligible for assistance from
the fund;
``(13) beginning in fiscal year 2011, the State will include
as a condition of providing assistance to a municipality or
intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency that the recipient
of such assistance certify, in a manner determined by the
Governor of the State, that the recipient--
``(A) has studied and evaluated the cost and
effectiveness of the processes, materials, techniques,
and technologies for carrying out the proposed project
or activity for which assistance is sought under this
title, and has selected, to the extent practicable, a
project or activity that maximizes the potential for
efficient water use, reuse, and conservation, and
energy conservation, taking into account the cost of
constructing the project or activity, the cost of
operating and maintaining the project or activity over
its life, and the cost of replacing the project or
activity; and
``(B) has considered, to the maximum extent
practicable and as determined appropriate by the
recipient, the costs and effectiveness of other design,
management, and financing approaches for carrying out a
project or activity for which assistance is sought
under this title, taking into account the cost of
constructing the project or activity, the cost of
operating and maintaining the project or activity over
its life, and the cost of replacing the project or
activity;
``(14) the State will use at least 10 percent of the amount
of each capitalization grant received by the State under this
title after September 30, 2010, to provide assistance to
municipalities of fewer than 10,000 individuals that meet the
affordability criteria established by the State under section
603(i)(2) for activities included on the State's priority list
established under section 603(g), to the extent that there are
sufficient applications for such assistance;
``(15) a contract to be carried out using funds directly made
available by a capitalization grant under this title for
program management, construction management, feasibility
studies, preliminary engineering, design, engineering,
surveying, mapping, or architectural related services shall be
negotiated in the same manner as a contract for architectural
and engineering services is negotiated under chapter 11 of
title 40, United States Code, or an equivalent State
qualifications-based requirement (as determined by the Governor
of the State); and
``(16) the requirements of section 513 will apply to the
construction of treatment works carried out in whole or in part
with assistance made available by a State water pollution
control revolving fund as authorized under this title, or with
assistance made available under section 205(m), or both, in the
same manner as treatment works for which grants are made under
this Act.''.
SEC. 1303. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.
(a) Projects and Activities Eligible for Assistance.--Section 603(c)
(33 U.S.C. 1383(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Projects and Activities Eligible for Assistance.--The amounts
of funds available to each State water pollution control revolving fund
shall be used only for providing financial assistance--
``(1) to any municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or
State agency for construction of publicly owned treatment
works;
``(2) for the implementation of a management program
established under section 319;
``(3) for development and implementation of a conservation
and management plan under section 320;
``(4) for the implementation of lake protection programs and
projects under section 314;
``(5) for repair or replacement of decentralized wastewater
treatment systems that treat domestic sewage;
``(6) for measures to manage, reduce, treat, or reuse
municipal stormwater, agricultural stormwater, and return flows
from irrigated agriculture;
``(7) to any municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or
State agency for measures to reduce the demand for publicly
owned treatment works capacity through water conservation,
efficiency, or reuse; and
``(8) for the development and implementation of watershed
projects meeting the criteria set forth in section 122.''.
(b) Extended Repayment Period.--Section 603(d)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1383(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``20 years'' and
inserting ``the lesser of 30 years or the design 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) Fiscal Sustainability Plan.--Section 603(d)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1383(d)(1)) is further amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) for any portion of a treatment works proposed
for repair, replacement, or expansion, and eligible for
assistance under section 603(c)(1), the recipient of a
loan will develop and implement a fiscal sustainability
plan that includes--
``(i) an inventory of critical assets that
are a part of that portion of the treatment
works;
``(ii) an evaluation of the condition and
performance of inventoried assets or asset
groupings; and
``(iii) a plan for maintaining, repairing,
and, as necessary, replacing that portion of
the treatment works and a plan for funding such
activities;''.
(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: ``, $400,000 per year, or \1/5\ percent per year of the
current valuation of the fund, whichever amount is greatest, plus the
amount of any fees collected by the State for such purpose regardless
of the source''.
(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 a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) to provide grants to owners and operators of treatment
works that serve a population of 10,000 or fewer for obtaining
technical and planning assistance and assistance in financial
management, user fee analysis, budgeting, capital improvement
planning, facility operation and maintenance, equipment
replacement, repair schedules, and other activities to improve
wastewater treatment plant management and operations, except
that the total amount provided by the State in grants under
this paragraph for a fiscal year may not exceed one percent of
the total amount of assistance provided by the State from the
fund in the preceding fiscal year, or 2 percent of the total
amount received by the State in capitalization grants under
this title in the preceding fiscal year, whichever amount is
greatest; and
``(9) to provide grants to owners and operators of treatment
works for conducting an assessment of the energy and water
consumption of the treatment works, and evaluating potential
opportunities for energy and water conservation through
facility operation and maintenance, equipment replacement, and
projects or activities that promote the efficient use of energy
and water by the treatment works, except that the total amount
provided by the State in grants under this paragraph for a
fiscal year may not exceed one percent of the total amount of
assistance provided by the State from the fund in the preceding
fiscal year, or 2 percent of the total amount received by the
State in capitalization grants under this title in the
preceding fiscal year, whichever amount is greatest.''.
(f) Additional Subsidization.--Section 603 (33 U.S.C. 1383) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Additional Subsidization.--
``(1) In general.--In any case in which a State provides
assistance to a municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or
State agency under subsection (d), the State may provide
additional subsidization, including forgiveness of principal
and negative interest loans--
``(A) to benefit a municipality that--
``(i) meets the State's affordability
criteria established under paragraph (2); or
``(ii) does not meet the State's
affordability criteria if the recipient--
``(I) seeks additional subsidization
to benefit individual ratepayers in the
residential user rate class;
``(II) demonstrates to the State that
such ratepayers will experience a
significant hardship from the increase
in rates necessary to finance the
project or activity for which
assistance is sought; and
``(III) ensures, as part of an
assistance agreement between the State
and the recipient, that the additional
subsidization provided under this
paragraph is directed through a user
charge rate system (or other
appropriate method) to such ratepayers;
or
``(B) to implement a process, material, technique, or
technology to address water-efficiency goals, address
energy-efficiency goals, mitigate stormwater runoff, or
encourage environmentally sensitive project planning,
design, and construction.
``(2) Affordability criteria.--
``(A) Establishment.--On or before September 30,
2010, and after providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment, a State shall establish affordability
criteria to assist in identifying municipalities that
would experience a significant hardship raising the
revenue necessary to finance a project or activity
eligible for assistance under section 603(c)(1) if
additional subsidization is not provided. Such criteria
shall be based on income data, population trends, and
other data determined relevant by the State.
``(B) Existing criteria.--If a State has previously
established, after providing notice and an opportunity
for public comment, affordability criteria that meet
the requirements of subparagraph (A), the State may use
the criteria for the purposes of this subsection. For
purposes of this Act, any such criteria shall be
treated as affordability criteria established under
this paragraph.
``(C) Information to assist states.--The
Administrator may publish information to assist States
in establishing affordability criteria under
subparagraph (A).
``(3) Priority.--A State may give priority to a recipient for
a project or activity eligible for funding under section
603(c)(1) if the recipient meets the State's affordability
criteria.
``(4) Set-aside.--
``(A) In general.--In any fiscal year in which the
Administrator has available for obligation more than
$1,000,000,000 for the purposes of this title, a State
shall provide additional subsidization under this
subsection in the amount specified in subparagraph (B)
to eligible entities described in paragraph (1) for
projects and activities identified in the State's
intended use plan prepared under section 606(c) to the
extent that there are sufficient applications for such
assistance.
``(B) Amount.--In a fiscal year described in
subparagraph (A), a State shall set aside for purposes
of subparagraph (A) an amount not less than 25 percent
of the difference between--
``(i) the total amount that would have been
allotted to the State under section 604 for
such fiscal year if the amount available to the
Administrator for obligation under this title
for such fiscal year had been equal to
$1,000,000,000; and
``(ii) the total amount allotted to the State
under section 604 for such fiscal year.
``(5) Limitation.--The total amount of additional
subsidization provided under this subsection by a State may not
exceed 30 percent of the total amount of capitalization grants
received by the State under this title in fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 2009.''.
SEC. 1304. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Section 604(a) (33 U.S.C. 1384(a)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Allotments.--
``(1) Fiscal years 2010 and 2011.--Sums appropriated to carry
out this title for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 shall be
allotted by the Administrator in accordance with the formula
used to allot sums appropriated to carry out this title for
fiscal year 2009.
``(2) Fiscal year 2012 and thereafter.--Sums appropriated to
carry out this title for fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year
thereafter shall be allotted by the Administrator as follows:
``(A) Amounts that do not exceed $1,350,000,000 shall
be allotted in accordance with the formula described in
paragraph (1).
``(B) Amounts that exceed $1,350,000,000 shall be
allotted in accordance with the formula developed by
the Administrator under subsection (d).''.
(b) Planning Assistance.--Section 604(b) (33 U.S.C. 1384(b)) is
amended by striking ``1 percent'' and inserting ``2 percent''.
(c) Formula.--Section 604 (33 U.S.C. 1384) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(d) Formula Based on Water Quality Needs.--Not later than September
30, 2011, and after providing notice and an opportunity for public
comment, the Administrator shall publish an allotment formula based on
water quality needs in accordance with the most recent survey of needs
developed by the Administrator under section 516(b).''.
SEC. 1305. INTENDED USE PLAN.
(a) Integrated Priority List.--Section 603(g) (33 U.S.C. 1383(g)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(g) Priority List.--
``(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal year
thereafter, a State shall establish or update a list of
projects and activities for which assistance is sought from the
State's water pollution control revolving fund. Such projects
and activities shall be listed in priority order based on the
methodology established under paragraph (2). The State may
provide financial assistance from the State's water pollution
control revolving fund only with respect to a project or
activity included on such list. In the case of projects and
activities eligible for assistance under section 603(c)(2), the
State may include a category or subcategory of nonpoint sources
of pollution on such list in lieu of a specific project or
activity.
``(2) Methodology.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this paragraph, and after
providing notice and opportunity for public comment,
each State (acting through the State's water quality
management agency and other appropriate agencies of the
State) shall establish a methodology for developing a
priority list under paragraph (1).
``(B) Priority for projects and activities that
achieve greatest water quality improvement.--In
developing the methodology, the State shall seek to
achieve the greatest degree of water quality
improvement, taking into consideration the requirements
of section 602(b)(5) and section 603(i)(3), whether
such water quality improvements would be realized
without assistance under this title, and whether the
proposed projects and activities would address water
quality impairments associated with existing treatment
works.
``(C) Considerations in selecting projects and
activities.--In determining which projects and
activities will achieve the greatest degree of water
quality improvement, the State shall consider--
``(i) information developed by the State
under sections 303(d) and 305(b);
``(ii) the State's continuing planning
process developed under section 303(e);
``(iii) the State's management program
developed under section 319; and
``(iv) conservation and management plans
developed under section 320.
``(D) Nonpoint sources.--For categories or
subcategories of nonpoint sources of pollution that a
State may include on its priority list under paragraph
(1), the State shall consider the cumulative water
quality improvements associated with projects or
activities in such categories or subcategories.
``(E) Existing methodologies.--If a State has
previously developed, after providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment, a methodology that
meets the requirements of this paragraph, the State may
use the methodology for the purposes of this
subsection.''.
(b) Intended Use Plan.--Section 606(c) (33 U.S.C. 1386(c)) is
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``each
State shall annually prepare'' and inserting ``each State
(acting through the State's water quality management agency and
other appropriate agencies of the State) shall annually prepare
and publish'';
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) the State's priority list developed under section
603(g);'';
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``and (6)'' and inserting ``(6),
(15), and (17)''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(4) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) if the State does not fund projects and activities in
the order of the priority established under section 603(g), an
explanation of why such a change in order is appropriate.''.
(c) Transitional Provision.--Before completion of a priority list
based on a methodology established under section 603(g) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (as amended by this section), a State shall
continue to comply with the requirements of sections 603(g) and 606(c)
of such Act, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 1306. ANNUAL REPORTS.
Section 606(d) (33 U.S.C. 1386(d)) is amended by inserting ``the
eligible purpose under section 603(c) for which the assistance is
provided,'' after ``loan amounts,''.
SEC. 1307. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF AMERICAN
MATERIALS.
Title VI (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 607 as section 609; and
(2) by inserting after section 606 the following:
``SEC. 607. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Simplified Procedures.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall assist the States in
establishing simplified procedures for treatment works to obtain
assistance under this title.
``(b) Publication of Manual.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this section, and after providing notice and
opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall publish a
manual to assist treatment works in obtaining assistance under this
title and publish in the Federal Register notice of the availability of
the manual.
``(c) Compliance Criteria.--At the request of any State, the
Administrator, after providing notice and an opportunity for public
comment, shall assist in the development of criteria for a State to
determine compliance with the conditions of funding assistance
established under sections 602(b)(13) and 603(d)(1)(E).
``SEC. 608. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF AMERICAN MATERIALS.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds made available by a State water pollution control
revolving fund as authorized under this title may be used for the
construction of treatment works unless the steel, iron, and
manufactured goods used in such treatment works are produced in the
United States.
``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case in
which the Administrator (in consultation with the Governor of the
State) finds that--
``(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the
public interest;
``(2) steel, iron, and manufactured goods are not produced in
the United States in sufficient and reasonably available
quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or
``(3) inclusion of steel, iron, and manufactured goods
produced in the United States will increase the cost of the
overall project by more than 25 percent.
``(c) Public Notification and Written Justification for Waiver.--If
the Administrator determines that it is necessary to waive the
application of subsection (a) based on a finding under subsection (b),
the Administrator shall--
``(1) not less than 15 days prior to waiving application of
subsection (a), provide public notice and the opportunity to
comment on the Administrator's intent to issue such waiver; and
``(2) upon issuing such waiver, publish in the Federal
Register a detailed written justification as to why the
provision is being waived.
``(d) Consistency With International Agreements.--This section shall
be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under
international agreements.''.
SEC. 1308. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 609 (as redesignated by section 1307 of this Act) is amended
by striking paragraphs (1) through (5) and inserting the following:
``(1) $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
``(2) $2,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
``(3) $2,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
``(4) $2,900,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
``(5) $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.''.
Subtitle D--General Provisions
SEC. 1401. DEFINITION OF TREATMENT WORKS.
Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(26) Treatment works.--The term `treatment works' has the
meaning given that term in section 212.''.
SEC. 1402. FUNDING FOR INDIAN PROGRAMS.
Section 518(c) (33 U.S.C. 1377) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Fiscal years 1987-2008.--The Administrator'';
(2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
(A) by inserting ``and ending before October 1,
2008,'' after ``1986,''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Fiscal year 2009 and thereafter.--For fiscal year 2009
and each fiscal year thereafter, the Administrator shall
reserve, before allotments to the States under section 604(a),
not less than 0.5 percent and not more than 1.5 percent of the
funds made available to carry out title VI.
``(3) Use of funds.--Funds reserved under this subsection
shall be available only for grants for projects and activities
eligible for assistance under section 603(c) to serve--
``(A) Indian tribes (as defined in section 518(h));
``(B) former Indian reservations in Oklahoma (as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior); and
``(C) Native villages (as defined in section 3 of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.
1602)).''.
Subtitle E--Tonnage Duties
SEC. 1501. TONNAGE DUTIES.
(a) In General.--Section 60301 of title 46, United State Code, is
amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Lower Rate.--
``(1) Imposition of duty.--A duty is imposed at the rate
described in paragraph (2) at each entry in a port of the
United States of--
``(A) a vessel entering from a foreign port or place
in North America, Central America, the West Indies
Islands, the Bahama Islands, the Bermuda Islands, or
the coast of South America bordering the Caribbean Sea;
or
``(B) a vessel returning to the same port or place in
the United States from which it departed, and not
entering the United States from another port or place,
except--
``(i) a vessel of the United States;
``(ii) a recreational vessel (as defined in
section 2101 of this title); or
``(iii) a barge.
``(2) Rate.--The rate referred to in paragraph (1) shall be--
``(A) 4.5 cents per ton (but not more than a total of
22.5 cents per ton per year) for fiscal years 2006
through 2009;
``(B) 9.0 cents per ton (but not more than a total of
45 cents per ton per year) for fiscal years 2010
through 2019; and
``(C) 2 cents per ton (but not more than a total of
10 cents per ton per year) for each fiscal year
thereafter.
``(b) Higher Rate.--
``(1) Imposition of duty.--A duty is imposed at the rate
described in paragraph (2) on a vessel at each entry in a port
of the United States from a foreign port or place not named in
subsection (a)(1).
``(2) Rate.--The rate referred to in paragraph (1) shall be--
``(A) 13.5 cents per ton (but not more than a total
of 67.5 cents per ton per year) for fiscal years 2006
through 2009;
``(B) 27 cents per ton (but not more than a total of
$1.35 per ton per year) for fiscal years 2010 through
2019, and
``(C) 6 cents per ton (but not more than a total of
30 cents per ton per year) for each fiscal year
thereafter.''.
(b) Liability in Rem.--Chapter 603 of title 46, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 60313. Liability in rem for costs
``A vessel is liable in rem for any amount due under this chapter for
that vessel and may be proceeded against for that liability in the
United States district court for any district in which the vessel may
be found.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Such title is further amended--
(1) by striking the heading for subtitle VI and inserting the
following:
``Subtitle VI--Clearance and Tonnage Duties'';
(2) in the heading for chapter 603, by striking ``TAXES'' and
inserting ``DUTIES'';
(3) in the headings of sections in chapter 603, by striking
``taxes'' each place it appears and inserting ``duties'';
(4) in the heading for subsection (a) of section 60303, by
striking ``Tax'' and inserting ``Duty'';
(5) in the text of sections in chapter 603, by striking
``taxes'' each place it appears and inserting ``duties''; and
(6) in the text of sections in chapter 603, by striking
``tax'' each place it appears and inserting ``duty''.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--Such title is further amended--
(1) in the title analysis by striking the item relating to
subtitle VI and inserting the following:
``VI. CLEARANCE AND TONNAGE DUTIES.......................... 60101'';
(2) in the analysis for subtitle VI by striking the item
relating to chapter 603 and inserting the following:
``603. Tonnage Duties and Light Money....................... 60301'';
and
(3) in the analysis for chapter 603--
(A) by striking the items relating to sections 60301
and 60302 and inserting the following:
``60301. Regular tonnage duties.
``60302. Special tonnage duties.'';
(B) by striking the item relating to section 60304
and inserting the following:
``60304. Presidential suspension of tonnage duties and light money.'';
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``60313. Liability in rem for costs.''.
TITLE II--ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS
SEC. 2001. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS.
(a) Selection of Projects.--Section 220(d)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1300(d)(2))
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following:
``or whether the project is located in an area which is served by a
public water system serving 10,000 individuals or fewer''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 220(j) (33 U.S.C.
1300(j)) is amended by striking ``$75,000,000 for fiscal years 2002
through 2004'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2010 through 2014''.
TITLE III--SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS
SEC. 3001. SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS.
(a) Administrative Requirements.--Section 221(e) (33 U.S.C. 1301(e))
is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Administrative Requirements.--A project that receives
assistance under this section shall be carried out subject to the same
requirements as a project that receives assistance from a State water
pollution control revolving fund under title VI, except to the extent
that the Governor of the State in which the project is located
determines that a requirement of title VI is inconsistent with the
purposes of this section.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--The first sentence of section
221(f) (33 U.S.C. 1301(f)) is amended by striking ``this section
$750,000,000'' and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting ``this section $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2010,
$300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2012,
$400,000,000 for fiscal year 2013, and $500,000,000 for fiscal year
2014.''.
(c) Allocation of Funds.--Section 221(g) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
1301(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) Fiscal year 2010.--Subject to subsection (h), the
Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to carry out
this section for fiscal year 2010 for making grants to
municipalities and municipal entities under subsection (a)(2)
in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (b).
``(2) Fiscal year 2011 and thereafter.--Subject to subsection
(h), the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to
carry out this section for fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal
year thereafter for making grants to States under subsection
(a)(1) in accordance with a formula to be established by the
Administrator, after providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment, that allocates to each State a proportional
share of such amounts based on the total needs of the State for
municipal combined sewer overflow controls and sanitary sewer
overflow controls identified in the most recent survey
conducted pursuant to section 516.''.
(d) Reports.--The first sentence of section 221(i) (33 U.S.C.
1301(i)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2012''.
TITLE IV--MONITORING, REPORTING, AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SEWER
OVERFLOWS
SEC. 4001. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SEWER
OVERFLOWS.
Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(s) Sewer Overflow Monitoring, Reporting, and Notifications.--
``(1) General requirements.--After the last day of the 180-
day period beginning on the date on which regulations are
issued under paragraph (4), a permit issued, renewed, or
modified under this section by the Administrator or the State,
as the case may be, for a publicly owned treatment works shall
require, at a minimum, beginning on the date of the issuance,
modification, or renewal, that the owner or operator of the
treatment works--
``(A) institute and utilize a feasible methodology,
technology, or management program for monitoring sewer
overflows to alert the owner or operator to the
occurrence of a sewer overflow in a timely manner;
``(B) in the case of a sewer overflow that has the
potential to affect human health, notify the public of
the overflow as soon as practicable but not later than
24 hours after the time the owner or operator knows of
the overflow;
``(C) in the case of a sewer overflow that may
imminently and substantially endanger human health,
notify public health authorities and other affected
entities, such as public water systems, of the overflow
immediately after the owner or operator knows of the
overflow;
``(D) report each sewer overflow on its discharge
monitoring report to the Administrator or the State, as
the case may be, by describing--
``(i) the magnitude, duration, and suspected
cause of the overflow;
``(ii) the steps taken or planned to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent recurrence of the
overflow; and
``(iii) the steps taken or planned to
mitigate the impact of the overflow; and
``(E) annually report to the Administrator or the
State, as the case may be, the total number of sewer
overflows in a calendar year, including--
``(i) the details of how much wastewater was
released per incident;
``(ii) the duration of each sewer overflow;
``(iii) the location of the overflow and any
potentially affected receiving waters;
``(iv) the responses taken to clean up the
overflow; and
``(v) the actions taken to mitigate impacts
and avoid further sewer overflows at the site.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Notification requirements.--The notification
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall not
apply to a sewer overflow that is a wastewater backup
into a single-family residence.
``(B) Reporting requirements.--The reporting
requirements of paragraphs (1)(D) and (1)(E) shall not
apply to a sewer overflow that is a release of
wastewater that occurs in the course of maintenance of
the treatment works, is managed consistently with the
treatment works' best management practices, and is
intended to prevent sewer overflows.
``(3) Report to epa.--Each State shall provide to the
Administrator annually a summary of sewer overflows that
occurred in the State.
``(4) Rulemaking by epa.--Not later than one year after the
date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator, after
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, shall
issue regulations to implement this subsection, including
regulations to--
``(A) establish a set of criteria to guide the owner
or operator of a publicly owned treatment works in--
``(i) assessing whether a sewer overflow has
the potential to affect human health or may
imminently and substantially endanger human
health; and
``(ii) developing communication measures that
are sufficient to give notice under paragraphs
(1)(B) and (1)(C); and
``(B) define the terms `feasible' and `timely' as
such terms apply to paragraph (1)(A), including site
specific conditions.
``(5) Approval of state notification programs.--
``(A) Requests for approval.--
``(i) In general.--After the date of issuance
of regulations under paragraph (4), a State may
submit to the Administrator evidence that the
State has in place a legally enforceable
notification program that is substantially
equivalent to or exceeds the requirements of
paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C).
``(ii) Program review and authorization.--If
the evidence submitted by a State under clause
(i) shows the notification program of the State
to be substantially equivalent to or exceeds
the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and
(1)(C), the Administrator shall authorize the
State to carry out such program instead of the
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C).
``(iii) Factors for determining substantial
equivalency.--In carrying out a review of a
State notification program under clause (ii),
the Administrator shall take into account the
scope of sewer overflows for which notification
is required, the length of time during which
notification must be made, the scope of persons
who must be notified of sewer overflows, the
scope of enforcement activities ensuring that
notifications of sewer overflows are made, and
such other factors as the Administrator
considers appropriate.
``(B) Review period.--If a State submits evidence
with respect to a notification program under
subparagraph (A)(i) on or before the last day of the
30-day period beginning on the date of issuance of
regulations under paragraph (4), the requirements of
paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall not begin to apply
to a publicly owned treatment works located in the
State until the date on which the Administrator
completes a review of the notification program under
subparagraph (A)(ii).
``(C) Withdrawal of authorization.--If the
Administrator, after conducting a public hearing,
determines that a State is not administering and
enforcing a State notification program authorized under
subparagraph (A)(ii) in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph, the Administrator shall
so notify the State and, if appropriate corrective
action is not taken within a reasonable time, not to
exceed 90 days, the Administrator shall withdraw
authorization of such program and enforce the
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) with
respect to the State.
``(6) Special rules concerning application of notification
requirements.--After the last day of the 30-day period
beginning on the date of issuance of regulations under
paragraph (4), the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C)
shall--
``(A) apply to the owner or operator of a publicly
owned treatment works and be subject to enforcement
under section 309, and
``(B) supersede any notification requirements
contained in a permit issued under this section for the
treatment works to the extent that the notification
requirements are less stringent than the notification
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C),
until such date as a permit is issued, renewed, or modified
under this section for the treatment works in accordance with
paragraph (1).
``(7) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Sanitary sewer overflow.--The term `sanitary
sewer overflow' means an overflow, spill, release, or
diversion of wastewater from a sanitary sewer system.
Such term does not include municipal combined sewer
overflows or other discharges from the combined portion
of a municipal combined storm and sanitary sewer system
and does not include wastewater backups into buildings
caused by a blockage or other malfunction of a building
lateral that is privately owned. Such term includes
overflows or releases of wastewater that reach waters
of the United States, overflows or releases of
wastewater in the United States that do not reach
waters of the United States, and wastewater backups
into buildings that are caused by blockages or flow
conditions in a sanitary sewer other than a building
lateral.
``(B) Sewer overflow.--The term `sewer overflow'
means a sanitary sewer overflow or a municipal combined
sewer overflow.
``(C) Single-family residence.--The term `single-
family residence' means an individual dwelling unit,
including an apartment, condominium, house, or
dormitory. Such term does not include the common areas
of a multi-dwelling structure.''.
TITLE V--GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION
SEC. 5001. REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF CONCERN.
Section 118(c)(12)(H) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(H)) is amended by striking clause (i) and inserting
the following:
``(i) In general.--In addition to other
amounts authorized under this section, there is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
paragraph--
``(I) $50,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2004 through 2009; and
``(II) $150,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2010 through 2014.''.
SEC. 5002. PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM.
Section 118(c)(13)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(13)(B)) is amended by
striking ``2010'' and inserting ``2014''.
SEC. 5003. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT REMEDIATION APPROACHES, TECHNOLOGIES,
AND TECHNIQUES.
Section 106(b) of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C.
1271a(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized under
other laws, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this section--
``(A) $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004
through 2009; and
``(B) $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010
through 2014.''.
Purpose of the Legislation
H.R. 1262 , the ``Water Quality Investment Act of 2009'',
amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (``Clean Water
Act'' or ``Act'') to reauthorize appropriations for
capitalization grants to States for state water pollution
control revolving funds; to reauthorize appropriations for the
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') to provide grants for
alternative water source projects to meet critical water supply
needs; to reauthorize appropriations for grants to
municipalities and States to control combined sewer overflows
and sanitary sewer overflows; to provide a uniform, national
standard for monitoring, reporting, and public notification of
municipal combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer
overflows; and to reauthorize and increase appropriations for
projects to remediate contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes
areas of concern.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
jurisdiction over water quality and wastewater infrastructure
programs administered by the Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'') under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
commonly known as the Clean Water Act.
REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING
FUND
The importance of investment in wastewater infrastructure
To a great extent, improvements in water quality since the
passage of the 1972 Clean Water Act have resulted from a
significant investment in wastewater infrastructure
improvements throughout the country. Since 1972, the Federal
Government has provided more than $82 billion for wastewater
infrastructure and other assistance, which has dramatically
improved water quality and the health of the economy and the
environment. During the same time period, overall investment in
the nation's wastewater infrastructure, from Federal, State,
and local sources, has been over $250 billion. Today, the
nationwide system of wastewater infrastructure includes 16,000
publicly owned wastewater treatment plants, 100,000 major
pumping stations, 600,000 miles of sanitary sewers, and 200,000
miles of storm sewers.
Investment in wastewater infrastructure has provided
significant environmental, public health, and economic benefits
to the nation. First through the Federal construction grants
program, and now the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (``Clean
Water SRF'') program, the investment in water infrastructure
has been integral to improving the quality of the nation's
waters. The improvements to water quality realized through
Federal, State, and local investment in wastewater
infrastructure have been significant, helping to increase the
number of fishable and swimmable waters throughout the nation.
As a result of dramatic improvements in wastewater
infrastructure, effluent discharges have decreased by one-half
since 1970, despite the fact that waste loads grew by more than
one-third due to population growth and an expanded economy.
Today, the nation's farmers, fishermen, and manufacturing and
tourism industries rely on clean water to carry out activities
that contribute more than $300 billion to our economy each
year.
However, these achievements are now at risk. According to a
2000 EPA report, entitled Progress in Water Quality, ``without
continued improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure,
future population growth will erode away many of the Clean
Water Act achievements in effluent loading reduction.''
Given the expansion of the U.S. population forecast over
the next 20 years, EPA projects that by 2016, wastewater
treatment plants nationwide may discharge pollutants into U.S.
waters at levels similar to those that existed in the mid-
1970s, only a few years after the enactment of the Clean Water
Act. In addition, if these population forecasts are projected
further to the year 2025, without significant investment in
additional treatment capacity, the level of pollution being
discharged into the nation's waters would reach rates not seen
since 1968, four years before the enactment of the Act, when
they reached the maximum level ever recorded.
Without increased investment in wastewater infrastructure,
in less than a generation, the U.S. could lose much of the
gains it has made thus far in improving water quality as a
result the 1972 Clean Water Act.
An additional concern is that much of the wastewater
infrastructure in this country is rapidly approaching or has
already exceeded its projected useful life. Many cities and
communities throughout the United States are currently facing a
critical juncture in the age and reliability of their water
infrastructure. For example, several major U.S. cities still
rely on sewer pipes that were installed more than 100 years ago
to collect and treat domestic sewage. In addition, many of the
wastewater treatment facilities constructed soon after
enactment of the Act are now reaching the end of their expected
useful life and are in need of repair or replacement.
Another looming need centers on upgrading aging
infrastructure to control and eliminate combined sewer
overflows. Combined sewers are found in 33 States across the
U.S. and the District of Columbia. To eliminate combined sewer
overflows, communities must redesign their sewer systems to
separate sewage flows from stormwater flows or provide
significant additional capacity to eliminate the possibility
that combined flows will exceed the limits of the
infrastructure. Either way, this will be a massive undertaking,
estimated by EPA to cost more than $50 billion.
In the near future, many communities will need to repair or
replace large portions of their wastewater infrastructure or
face the likelihood of increased failures in their ability to
treat wastewater, posing a significant threat to the country's
quality of life, economic prosperity, and the health and safety
of both human populations and environmental quality.
Moreover, following the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, the identification and protection of critical
infrastructure has become a national priority, and protection
of critical wastewater infrastructure has become important to
homeland security. Utilities need to increase security and
implement measures to protect their wastewater treatment and
collection systems, which is placing a further demand for
resources on utilities.
The Clean Water Act requires EPA to report to Congress
every two years with a detailed estimate of the costs of needed
water infrastructure in each State. This report, which is
compiled through a survey of the States, includes estimates of
needed projects to achieve the improvements in water quality
necessary to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act, including
publicly owned municipal wastewater collection and treatment
facilities, facilities for the control of combined sewer
overflows, activities to control stormwater runoff and nonpoint
source pollution, and programs designed to protect the nation's
estuaries.
These state surveys show that the financial resources
necessary for wastewater infrastructure improvements are
substantial. According to EPA's most recent assessment of
wastewater infrastructure needs, the Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey 2004 Report to Congress, the existing documented needs
for the nation are $202.5 billion. In addition, according to
EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap
Analysis, between $300 billion and $400 billion in capital
investment is needed over the next 20 years for restoration and
replacement of the nation's aging wastewater infrastructure.
Considering that the average annual investment to the Clean
Water SRFs by EPA over the past few years has trended downward
from the recent long-term average of $1.35 billion, the level
of investment necessary to address these needs and close the
current funding gap requires a renewed and expanded commitment
from all levels of government, including the Federal
Government.
Other organizations, including the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) and a coalition of industry and other
stakeholders, all have estimated that significant increases in
investments are needed to address wastewater needs over the
next 20 years--as much as twice the current level of investment
by all levels of government. These estimates fall between CBO's
low-cost estimate of a $3.2 billion annual gap, and CBO's high-
cost estimate of an $11.1 billion annual gap. The needs are
especially urgent for areas trying to remedy the problem of
combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows, and for
small communities lacking sufficient independent financing
ability.
EPA is also examining how improved technologies and
innovative financing options might help close the gap between
projected needs and current expenditures. However, even if
wastewater systems are able to implement cost savings and
improved efficiencies, significant increases in investment from
all levels of government will be needed to meet projected
needs.
In addition, a significant number of small, rural, and
disadvantaged communities throughout the nation face challenges
financing wastewater infrastructure, either because of a lack
of sufficient financial resources or a declining ratepayer base
to address stranded infrastructure needs. In many of these
communities, even with the assistance of below-market rate
loans from the state revolving fund, communities still face
difficulties affording the increase in local wastewater rates
that would otherwise be necessary to finance wastewater
infrastructure needs. In many cases, addressing these
affordability issues may require an increased level of Federal
assistance through additional technical assistance, financial
flexibility, or subsidization to targeted communities or
ratepayers.
Finally, over the last decade, innovative technologies have
emerged that provide similar (or increased) benefits to
traditional wastewater infrastructure projects, but in a more
cost-effective, sustainable, and environmentally-sensitive
manner. These technologies, such as on-site source controls to
capture stormwater, pervious pavement, green roofs, stream
buffers, and other water reuse technologies, mimic natural
processes to protect and enhance environmental quality, reduce
wet-weather related ``peak'' loads, and promote water
conservation and reuse. When used independently, or in
conjunction with other traditional treatment technologies, the
use of water-efficient technologies can provide the same, or
greater, water quality benefits at a reduced cost, both in
terms of capital investment and long-term operation and
maintenance. For example, a 2007 EPA report, entitled Reducing
Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID)
Strategies and Practices, found that total capital cost savings
ranged from 15 to 80 percent when LID methods were used when
compared to conventional stormwater management costs.
In the same manner, investment in technologies that improve
the overall energy-efficiency of a publicly owned wastewater
treatment facility will enable owners and operators of such
facilities to provide their essential services in a more cost-
effective, and environmentally-sensitive manner. As noted in a
recent hearing of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, the potential for energy conservation and
operation and maintenance cost savings from implementation of
energy-efficient technologies are substantial--including energy
savings ranging from between 10 and 30 percent for the
replacement and upgrading of existing components (e.g., aerator
pumps and motors) to the potential for a treatment facility to
generate 100 percent of its own power from the use of biogas
(i.e., methane recapture), cogeneration (i.e., combined heat
and power), or renewable sources of energy (e.g., wind and
solar).
Several witnesses at a February 2009 hearing of the
Subcommittee identified potential barriers to the comprehensive
implementation of water- and energy-efficient technologies for
wastewater treatment plants. Chief among these barriers are a
lack of information on the potential cost savings and
environmental benefit from implementation of water- and energy-
efficient technologies, as well as the reality that certain
water- and energy-efficient technologies may represent non-
traditional ways of addressing wastewater treatment and,
therefore, require additional financial incentives to be
undertaken by local communities.
The Clean Water Act Program
Titles II and VI of the Clean Water Act provide authority
for grants to States and municipalities and the establishment
of Clean Water SRFs, respectively, for the construction of
treatment works. The Construction Grants program, contained in
Title II of the Act, funded approximately $60 billion in
wastewater improvements over the life of the program. This
program was phased out in favor of state revolving loan funds
in the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4).
Title VI of the Clean Water Act provides for the
establishment and capitalization of Clean Water SRFs to aid in
funding the construction of wastewater infrastructure for the
improvement of water quality throughout the nation.
Since 1987, the majority of Federal assistance for
wastewater infrastructure improvements has been through the
Clean Water SRF program. Through this program, individual
States and Territories maintain revolving loan funds to provide
low-cost financing for approved infrastructure projects. Funds
to capitalize the Clean Water SRF programs are provided through
Federal capitalization grants and state matching funds (equal
to 20 percent of Federal Government grants). Since 1987,
Congress has appropriated more than $24 billion in
capitalization grants funded through general taxpayer revenues.
Clean Water SRF revenues also include receipts from the sale of
bonds, loan repayments, and interest earnings. From all
sources, more than $55 billion has been deposited into the
state revolving funds.
EPA has approved 57 States and Territories for funding
under the Clean Water SRF program. Clean Water SRFs are
available to make low-interest loans, buy or refinance local
debt, subsidize or insure local bonds, make loan guarantees,
act as security or guarantee of state debt, earn interest, and
pay administrative expenses. Clean Water SRF monies also may be
used to implement certain other water pollution control
programs such as nonpoint source pollution management and
national estuary programs. All projects must be those that will
assure maintenance of progress toward the goals of the Clean
Water Act and meet the standards and enforceable requirements
of the Act.
Through fiscal year 2007, the Clean Water SRFs have
provided $63 billion in loans for wastewater projects,
including nearly $5.3 billion in loans in FY 2007 alone. Yet,
the demand for financial assistance from the Clean Water SRFs
continues to exceed available funds, forcing communities to
look elsewhere for the additional capital necessary for
wastewater infrastructure, or to defer wastewater
infrastructure improvements.
Communities raise the rest of the capital they may require
from other sources, primarily from banks and issuing municipal
bonds. Communities use revenues collected from rate-payers to
fund both operation and maintenance and repayment of the debt
they have incurred. Very few communities have sufficient
capital resources to fund infrastructure improvements without
incurring debt. Small, rural, and disadvantaged communities
face a shrinking pool of financing resources, and are
especially at a disadvantage in financing water and wastewater
infrastructure.
GRANTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS
In recent years, there has been increasing interest by
communities across the nation and by Congress in ensuring the
availability of water sources to meet future water supply
needs. Growth in population and increasing environmental
awareness are causing many communities to explore alternative
water supplies through reclamation, reuse, and conservation.
While the initial Clean Water Act Construction Grants
program, and the Clean Water SRFs have been available for such
activities, most expenditures to date have been for more
traditional wastewater projects, and not for enhancing water
supplies through wastewater reuse and water recycling.
To provide Federal assistance, in 2000, Congress amended
the Clean Water Act to add section 220 (Title VI of Pub. L.
106-457). Section 220 authorized appropriations of $75 million
for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 for EPA to make grants for
alternative water source projects to entities with authority
under State law to develop or provide water for municipal and
industrial or agricultural uses in areas that are experiencing
critical water supply needs, with a non-Federal cost share of
50 percent. This authorization has expired. Reauthorization of
section 220 of the Clean Water Act provides an authority to
help meet some of the critical water supply needs around the
nation.
GRANTS FOR THE CONTROL OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS AND SANITARY SEWER
OVERFLOWS
Municipal wastewater collection systems collect domestic
sewage and other wastewater from homes and other buildings and
convey it to wastewater treatment plants for proper treatment
and disposal. These collection systems and treatment facilities
are an extensive, valuable, and complex part of the nation's
infrastructure. Sewage treatment operators perform an important
job that helps protect the public, and are critical in
achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act. The collection and
treatment of domestic sewage and other wastewater is vital to
the nation's economic and public health and the protection of
the environment.
Two types of public sewer systems predominate in the United
States--combined sewer systems and separate sanitary sewer
systems. Municipal combined sewer systems utilize a joint-
conveyance for the movement of wastewater (e.g., domestic
sewage) and stormwater to wastewater treatment facilities.
Separate sanitary sewer systems have individual (separated)
conveyances for the movement of domestic sewage and for
stormwater.
Combined sewer systems, which carry both storm water and
sanitary (sewage) flows, and separate sanitary sewer systems
can overflow with untreated waste during wet weather episodes
such as rainfall or snow melts. These combined sewer overflows
(``CSOs'') and sanitary sewer overflows (``SSOs'') may also
occur outside of precipitation events because of insufficient
system capacity, poor system design, inadequate maintenance,
inflow from improper connections to the system, and
infiltration from groundwater into deteriorated pipes, among
other factors.
CSOs and SSOs present significant public health and safety
concerns because raw sewage can overflow into rivers, lakes,
streets, parks, basements, and other areas of potential human
exposure, adversely impacting public health and the
environment. These discharges are among the major sources
responsible for beach closures, shellfish restrictions, and
exceedances of water quality standards.
Combined sewer overflows
According to a December 2001 EPA Report to Congress, there
are 772 communities across the United States that have combined
sewer systems. These combined sewer systems have 9,471 built-in
relief outlets designed to prevent wastewater flows in excess
of system capacity from damaging the systems' treatment works,
by allowing wastewater discharges (``overflows'') directly into
nearby streams, rivers, lakes, or estuaries, instead of going
to the treatment works. Combined sewers are found in 31 States
across the U.S. and the District of Columbia. The majority of
combined sewers are located in communities in the Northeast and
the Great Lakes regions, where much of the oldest water
infrastructure in the nation is found. However, combined sewer
overflows have also occurred in the West, including the States
of Washington, Oregon, and California. To eliminate combined
sewer overflows, communities must redesign their sewer systems
to separate sewage flows from stormwater flows or provide
significant additional capacity to eliminate the possibility
that combined flows will exceed the limits of the
infrastructure.
EPA has also estimated that more than 40,000 SSOs per year
occur from the nation's 19,500 separate sanitary sewer systems.
SSOs can have a major impact on human health and the
environment through discharges into neighborhood streets,
parks, individual homeowner basements, and other areas.
CSOs are point source discharges regulated under the Clean
Water Act, and are subject to permitting under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) by EPA or
authorized States. Permits include technology-based standards
determined on a case-by-case basis (rather than categorical
standards) and any appropriate water quality standards. Under
the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy issued by EPA in
1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 18688) (``CSO Control Policy''), communities
must adopt nine minimum controls and must develop long-term
control plans. The CSO Control Policy requires these controls
and plans to be incorporated into an NPDES permit or other
enforceable mechanism that will ensure implementation by the
CSO community. Section 402(q) of the Clean Water Act requires
each permit, order, or decree issued after December 21, 2000,
for a discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary
sewer to conform to the CSO Control Policy.
Sanitary sewer overflows
Since the first part of the 20th Century, municipalities in
the United States have generally constructed separate sanitary
and stormwater sewer systems. Sanitary sewer systems are
specifically designed to carry domestic sewage flows and
stormwater runoff from precipitation events through different
conveyances.
While sanitary sewer systems are designed to separate
sewage from stormwater, sewer overflows from separated systems
still may occur. Unlike CSOs, which are typically designed with
a specific outfall for overflows, SSOs can occur at any point
in a separate sewer system and during dry or wet weather. In
its 2004 Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSOs
and SSOs (``CSO and SSO Report''), EPA defines SSOs to include
those overflows that reach waters of the United States, as well
as overflows out of manholes and onto city streets, sidewalks,
and other terrestrial locations. EPA estimates that 72 percent
of all SSOs reach the waters of the United States, but SSOs
also include overflows that remain entirely within terrestrial
locations, including streets, parks, and sewage backups into
buildings and private residences.
SSOs that reach the waters of the United States are point
source discharges, and are prohibited under the Clean Water Act
unless authorized by a NPDES permit under section 402 of the
Act. In addition, all SSOs, including those that do not reach
the waters of the United States, may be indicative of improper
operation and maintenance of the sewer system, and thus may
violate existing NPDES permit conditions (40 CFR 122.41
(2008)).
SSOs have a variety of causes including sewer line
blockages, line breaks, or sewer defects that allow excess
stormwater and groundwater to infiltrate and overload the
system (also called infiltration and inflow), lapses in sewer
operation and maintenance, inadequate sewer design and
construction, power failures, and vandalism.
When sewage backups are caused by problems in the publicly
owned portion of a sanitary sewer system, they are considered
SSOs. Generally speaking, sewage backups that are caused by
blockages or other malfunctions of privately-owned building
laterals do not fall within EPA's definition of a SSO.
EPA estimates that between 23,000 and 75,000 SSOs occur per
year in the United States, discharging a total volume of three
to 10 billion gallons per year. According to EPA, this estimate
does not account for discharges occurring after the headworks
of the treatment plant or discharges into buildings caused by
problems in the publicly owned portion of a sanitary sewer
system, both of which would increase the annual total volume of
SSOs.
Individual SSOs can range in volume from one gallon to
millions of gallons. The majority of SSO events are caused by
sewer blockages that can occur at any time, but the majority of
SSO volume appears to be related to events caused by wet
weather events and excessive inflow and infiltration.
Impacts of sewer overflows
Sewer overflows, whether from municipal combined sewer
systems or sanitary sewer systems, can pose significant
environmental impacts, as well as cause or contribute to human
health impacts.
According to its 2000 National Water Quality Inventory
Report, EPA has determined that three pollutants are most often
associated with impaired waters in the United States--solids,
pathogens, and nutrients. Under the Clean Water Act, a
waterbody is impaired if it fails to meet water quality
standards for a particular use for the water (e.g., drinking,
fishing, recreation).
All three pollutants are contained in CSO and SSO
discharges. Therefore, according to EPA, at a minimum, CSOs and
SSOs contribute to the loadings of these pollutants in the
receiving waters where they occur. Although EPA was not able to
quantify a direct relationship in every state, in those states
where EPA could identify an assessed segment of a particular
waterbody located within one mile downstream of a CSO outfall,
75 percent of these waterbodies were listed as impaired.
States have identified CSOs and SSOs as the direct or a
contributing cause of documented environmental impacts,
including aquatic life impairments, fish kills, shellfish bed
closures, and continuing discharges of toxic chemicals, such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (``PCBs'') and other priority
pollutants.
In addition, CSOs and SSOs often contain microbial
pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses, and parasites) that cause
or contribute to human health impacts, including
gastroenteritis, hepatitis, giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis,
dysentery, and other gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases,
and, in rare cases, death. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimates that there are 7,100,000 cases of mild to
moderate, and 560,000 cases of moderate to severe, infectious
waterborne disease in the United States each year, though
exactly how many of these are attributable to sewer overflows
remains uncertain.
Although the potential for human exposure can come in many
forms, EPA and public drinking water agencies have expressed
specific concern about the potential for direct contamination
of public drinking water sources from sewer overflows. For
example, EPA has identified 59 CSO outfalls in seven states
located within one mile upstream of a drinking water intake.
However, public health authorities are not routinely notified
of sewer overflows that threaten public health.
One recent example of the potential for drinking water
contamination by a sewer overflow occurred in the spring of
1993, when more than 400,000 people in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
were infected by a microscopic parasite, cryptosporidium
parvum, which entered the public drinking water supply for the
city. This outbreak resulted in over 100 deaths. Although the
exact source of the parasite was not discovered, studies
suggest that untreated wastewater leaks in the Milwaukee area
may have discharged the parasite to Lake Michigan, which serves
as the primary drinking water source for the metropolitan
region. Although impacts as large as the Milwaukee
cryptosporidium outbreak are rare, similar parasitic outbreaks
have contaminated drinking water sources in other U.S. cities,
such as Brushy Creek, Texas (1998), Island Park, Idaho (1995),
Las Vegas, Nevada (1993), Cabool, Missouri (1990), and Braun
Station, Texas (1985).
Finally, EPA estimates that CSOs and SSOs cause between
3,448 and 5,576 individual cases of illness annually from
direct exposure to pollutants at the nation's recognized
recreational beaches. Yet, it its CSO and SSO Report, EPA
stated that this range under-represents the likely number of
annual illnesses (estimated by EPA to be between 1,800,000 and
3,500,000 individuals annually) attributable to CSO and SSO
contamination of recreational beaches, and that a significant
number of additional illnesses not captured in this range occur
for exposed swimmers at inland and other coastal beaches.
Correcting these problems is expensive. In 2000, EPA
estimated the cost to communities of addressing CSOs to be
$50.6 billion, and the cost of addressing SSOs to be $88.5
billion. The vast majority of these costs will be borne by
local communities and local ratepayers. Federal assistance has
been small relative to the overall needs to address CSOs and
SSOs. Through June 2006, States have made approximately $5.3
billion in loans for CSOs from Clean Water SRFs and have made
approximately $6 billion in loans to address the infiltration
and inflow into sewer pipes that can cause SSOs.
To provide additional Federal assistance, in 2000, Congress
amended the Clean Water Act to add section 221 (P.L. 106-554).
Section 221 authorized appropriations of $750 million for each
of fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for EPA to make grants to States
and municipalities for controlling CSOs and SSOs. This
authorization was conditioned upon the receipt of at least
$1.35 billion in appropriations for the Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Funds. No funds were appropriated for sewer
overflow control grants in either fiscal year 2002 or 2003.
Reauthorization of appropriations for section 221 provides
an authority to help municipalities and States control combined
sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.
SEWAGE OVERFLOW COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
The most reliable way to prevent human illness from
waterborne diseases and pathogens is to eliminate the potential
for human exposure to the discharge of pollutants from CSOs and
SSOs. This can occur either through the elimination of the
discharge, or, in the event that a release does occur, to
minimize the potential human contact to pollutants. Currently,
Federal law does not provide a uniform, national standard for
public notification of combined and sanitary sewer overflows.
Public notification of sewer overflows is governed by a variety
of Federal regulations, state laws, and local initiatives aimed
at limiting human exposure to discharges.
Potential human exposure to the pollutants found in sewer
overflows can occur through several pathways. According to EPA,
the most common pathways include direct contact with waters
receiving CSO or SSO discharges, drinking water contaminated by
sewer discharges, and consuming or handling contaminated fish
or shellfish. However, humans are also at risk of direct
exposure to sewer overflows, including sewer backups into
residential buildings, city streets, and sidewalks.
As noted earlier, the cost of eliminating CSOs and SSOs
throughout the nation is staggering. However, in the event that
a release does occur, the most effective way to prevent illness
is to provide timely and adequate public notice to minimize
human exposure to pollutants.
Although public notification of sewer overflows is not
uniformly required, some Federal statutes do provide specific
requirements for the timely public notification of potential
human health risks from waterborne contaminants.
For example, section 1414 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
requires public water systems to notify the persons served by
the system of any failure to comply with applicable Federal or
state drinking water standards, the existence of any drinking
water variance to safe drinking water standards, and the
presence of any ``unregulated contaminants'' that pose a public
health threat. The Act also requires public water systems to
implement notification procedures to ensure that any violation
of a drinking water standard with potential serious adverse
effects on human health be made public as soon as practicable,
but not later than 24 hours after the violation. Finally, the
Act requires public water systems to provide written notice and
annual reports to Federal and State agencies, as well as to the
public.
Similarly, section 406 of the Clean Water Act authorizes
funding for state and local governments to implement coastal
recreational water quality monitoring and notification
programs. This authority, enacted as part of the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of
2000, requires as a Federal grant condition that state and
local governments identify measures for the prompt
communication of contamination of coastal water quality, as
well as measures for the posting of appropriate public notice
(e.g., beach signs) that the coastal waters fail to meet water
quality standards.
Typically, the presence of waterborne contaminants in
drinking water and surface waters utilized for recreation is
detected through direct water quality sampling or national
reports of waterborne illness outbreaks, coordinated through
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National
Center for Infectious Diseases. The likelihood for detection of
potential waterborne contaminants in drinking water and
recreational waters would dramatically increase if local
governmental officials and the public were provided with direct
notification in the event of a sewer overflow, rather than
waiting for the results of local water sampling or
epidemiological studies.
Over the past decade, EPA has taken several administrative
steps to encourage local governmental agencies, including
sewerage agencies, to report sewer overflows to Federal and
State agencies and the public.
EPA's CSO Control Policy requires owners and operators of
combined sewer systems to implement minimum technology-based
controls (the ``nine minimum controls'') that can reduce the
prevalence and impacts of CSOs without significant engineering
studies or major construction. These controls include a
requirement for the public disclosure of CSOs. The policy does
not require any particular methodology for notification, but
identifies potential methods, including posting appropriate
notices in affected use areas or public places, newspaper,
radio, or television news programs, and direct mail contact for
affected residents. The requirements of the control policy are
limited to CSOs.
For SSOs, there is no consistent Federal requirement for
public notification of sewer overflows. Under existing EPA
regulations (40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)), NPDES permits should
establish a process for requiring a permittee to report any
noncompliance with the permit that may endanger health or the
environment. However, EPA regulations do not specifically
require notification of the public in the event of a sanitary
sewer overflow.
To address this lack of a consistent Federal requirement
for public notification, in January 2001, EPA issued a draft
SSO rule that, among other issues, would have implemented a
formal program for reporting, public notification, and
recordkeeping for sanitary sewer systems and SSOs.
This draft rule would have required owners and operators of
sanitary sewer systems to develop an overflow emergency plan
describing how the owner or operator would immediately notify
the public, public health agencies, and other similar entities
(e.g., drinking water suppliers and beach monitoring
authorities), of overflows that may imminently and
substantially endanger human health. In addition, the draft SSO
rule would have required owners or operators of publicly owned
treatment works to provide the appropriate Federal or state
agencies with information on the magnitude, duration, and
suspected cause of the overflow, as well as actions necessary
to avoid future overflows.
EPA's draft SSO rule was never finalized, and was later
withdrawn. No additional regulatory proposals for public
notification of SSOs have been issued.
GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT
The Great Lakes basin includes all of the state of
Michigan, parts of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Canadian provinces of
Ontario and Quebec. Approximately 40 million people live within
the Great Lakes basin. Water in the Lakes is used for a
multitude of activities including fishing, swimming, boating,
agriculture, industry, and shipping. In addition, the Lakes
contain around 84 percent of North America's and 21 percent of
the world's surface fresh water supplies.
Industrialization and development have had a significant
impact on the Great Lakes ecosystem. The region's industrial
development has included mining, steel production, and machine
tool and automobile manufacturing. Agriculture is also a
significant component of the regional economy. The Great Lakes
have historically provided convenient waterways for the
movement of goods. They also provide process and cooling water
for industrial users, and are used to generate hydroelectric
power. While industrialization, agriculture, power generation,
and other activities have produced significant economic
development in the region, water quality has also been
adversely impacted.
In its 2002 National Water Quality Inventory, the
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') reports that 91
percent of assessed Great Lakes shoreline miles were impaired--
meaning that the shoreline did not meet all of its designated
uses, including fishing, swimming, and suitability for aquatic
wildlife habitat. The leading causes of impairment include the
presence of pathogens, metals, and toxic organic compounds in
the shoreline waters of the Great Lakes. EPA notes that the
dominant cause of reported shoreline impairment is legacy, or
historical, pollution--chiefly contaminated sediment. In the
same report, EPA reports that 99 percent of the assessed Great
Lakes open waters were rated as impaired. The predominant
causes of this impairment include the presence of priority
organics, metals (primarily mercury), and pesticides in the
open waters of the Great Lakes. The primary sources of open
water impairments are atmospheric deposition, industrial
sources, agriculture, and legacy (historical) pollutants.
The impaired nature of the Great Lakes is also reflected in
the biennial assessment of EPA and Environment Canada, entitled
the ``State of the Great Lakes'' report, which is carried out
pursuant to the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In
2007, this report identified the status of the Great Lakes
ecosystem as ``mixed'', with the particular concern expressed
on the localized toxic contamination that continues to exist in
high levels in the Great Lakes areas of concern.
Under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the United States
and Canada created the International Joint Commission (``IJC'')
to monitor, periodically inspect, and make recommendations on
actions to be taken by the United States and Canada to protect
the Great Lakes. The IJC has six commissioners, three from each
nation. In 1972, the United States and Canada signed the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement to address mutual interests and
improve water quality. In 1987, the two nations revised the
agreement and committed to ecosystem cleanup plans for ``areas
of concern''. The IJC monitors progress toward these
commitments and issues biennial reports.
To support the commitments made in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, Congress added section 118 to the Clean
Water Act in 1987. Section 118 formally established the Great
Lakes National Program Office within EPA. One of the functions
of the Office is to ensure that Remedial Action Plans are
developed and implemented for the areas of concern identified
by the United States and Canada.
At present, there are 43 areas of concern within the Great
Lakes Basin, 26 areas wholly within the United States, 12 areas
located wholly within Canada, and 5 areas that are shared by
both countries. The areas of concern were defined under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as ``ecologically degraded
geographic areas requiring remediation''. An area is considered
ecologically degraded if at least one of 14 beneficial use
impairments is present as a result of contamination--
restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption; tainting of fish
and wildlife flavor; degradation of fish and wildlife
populations; fish tumors or other deformities; bird or animal
deformities or reproduction problems; degradation of benthos;
restrictions on dredging activities; eutrophication or
undesirable algae; restrictions on drinking water consumption,
or taste and odor problems; beach closings; degradation of
aesthetics; added costs to agriculture or industry; degradation
of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; or loss of fish
and wildlife habitat.
Summary of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title; table of contents
This section designates the title of the bill as the
``Water Quality Investment Act of 2009''.
Section 2. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act
This section provides that, unless otherwise expressly
provided, an amendment made by this legislation shall be
considered to be made to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
Title I--Water Quality Financing
Subtitle A--Technical and Management Assistance
Section 1101. Technical assistance for rural and small treatment works
This section amends section 104 of the Clean Water Act to
authorize appropriations of $100 million for each of fiscal
years 2010 through 2014 for an existing program within the
Environmental Protection Agency to fund research,
demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution,
including the authorization of $20 million in appropriations
annually for a new program to provide financial and technical
assistance to rural and small communities.
Subsection (a) amends section 104(b) of the Act to
authorize EPA to make grants to nonprofit organizations to
assist rural and small municipalities in planning, developing,
and obtaining financing for projects and activities eligible
for assistance under this Act; provide technical assistance and
training for rural and small publicly owned treatment works and
decentralized wastewater treatment systems to enable them to
protect water quality and achieve and maintain compliance with
the requirements of the Act; and disseminate information to
rural and small municipalities and municipalities that meet a
state's affordability criteria with respect to planning,
design, construction, and operation of publicly owned treatment
works and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. The
Administrator of EPA (``Administrator'') is to ensure that, to
the maximum extent practicable, grants are made available to
each state, and to prioritize grants to rural and small
municipalities of 10,000 users or fewer. This subsection seeks
to address the concern that certain rural and small
municipalities may require additional technical assistance or
resources to apply for wastewater infrastructure assistance
under this Act.
Subsection (b) authorizes appropriations of $100 million
for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for carrying out
existing sections 104(b)(3) and 104(g), and new section
104(b)(8) of the Act, and requires that at least 20 percent of
amounts appropriated pursuant to this paragraph are used to
carry out section 104(b)(8).
Subsection (c) increases the authorization of
appropriations for EPA's national small flows clearinghouse,
which collects and disseminates information on small flows of
sewage and innovative or alternative wastewater treatment
processes and techniques.
Section 1102. State management assistance
This section amends section 106 of the Act to authorize
appropriations of $300 million for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2014 for an existing EPA program that provides
financial assistance to state water quality management
programs.
Section 1103. Watershed pilot projects
This section authorizes appropriations of $20 million for
each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for an existing EPA
pilot project program that provides technical assistance and
grants for treatment works to carry out projects related to the
management of combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer
overflows, and stormwater discharges, on a watershed or
subwatershed basis.
Subsection 1103(a) broadens the existing authority (section
122 of the Act) to ensure that the Administrator considers the
use of low-impact development technologies in evaluating pilot
projects carried out under this section to demonstrate
stormwater best management practices, and to authorize pilot
projects that demonstrate cooperative ways to address nonpoint
sources of pollution and reduce adverse impacts on water
quality, on a watershed basis.
Subsection 1103(c) amends section 122(d) of the Act to
extend the date for the submission of a report by the
Administrator to Congress on the results of pilot projects
carried out under this section until October 1, 2011.
Subtitle B--Construction of Treatment Works
Section 1201. Sewage collection systems
This section amends section 211 of the Act to clarify that
a community seeking financial assistance from the state
revolving fund for the replacement and rehabilitation of a
collection system in existence on January 1, 2007, or for the
construction of a new collection system for a community in
existence on January 1, 2007, that is otherwise eligible for
such assistance under section 211, shall be eligible for such
assistance, provided that the replacement and rehabilitation of
the existing collection system, or the new collection system is
to address an adverse environmental condition that exists as of
the date of enactment of this paragraph.
The Committee intends the pre-existing adverse
environmental condition language to provide a balance between
the need to address existing water quality concerns resulting
from population growth through increased collection system
capacity and the concern that collection system expansion could
result in increased sprawl. The Committee is aware of efforts
by several States to address similar water quality concerns
through the expanded use of decentralized wastewater treatment
systems, without the need to construct new collection systems
or expand existing collection systems. The Committee does not
intend the amendments made by section 1201 to affect these
efforts, and encourages States to address ongoing water quality
concerns in a manner that does not rely solely on collection
systems or promote sprawl.
Section 1202. Treatment works defined
This section amends the definition of treatment works in
section 212 of the Act to include, as an eligible cost, the
acquisition of lands and interests in land, necessary for
construction of the treatment works.
Subtitle C--State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds
Section 1301. General authority for capitalization grants
This section amends section 601(a) of the Act to expand the
general statement of authority for use of a state water
pollution control revolving fund.
Section 1302. Capitalization grant agreements
Subsection 1302(a) requires loan recipients to comply with
Federal accounting standards governing the reporting of
infrastructure assets.
Subsection 1302(b) amends section 602(b) of the Act to add
or renew several requirements as a condition of eligibility for
a state to receive a capitalization grant for its revolving
fund.
Paragraph 1302(b)(1) amends existing section 602(b)(6) of
the Act to reinstate two requirements that were applied to
projects for the construction of publicly owned treatment works
prior to October 1, 1994, related to limitations on the
replacement of existing sewage collection systems or the
construction of new sewage collection systems, and the
application of the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'')
of 1969. The Committee has included language to reinstate the
application of NEPA to publicly owned treatment works
constructed in whole or in part with assistance made available
by a State water pollution control revolving loan fund. The
Committee understands that this requirement has been met by
States in the Clean Water SRF program through the use of State
Environmental Review Processes (``SERP'') that conform
generally to NEPA. It is the intent of the Committee that
States continue the use of such SERPs to meet the requirements
of section 511(c)(1) of this Act.
New section 602(b)(11) of the Act requires States to
establish and maintain their revolving fund in perpetuity. This
requirement exists in current law as the second sentence of
existing section 603(c), but is added to section 602(b) to
consolidate the list of conditions for state eligibility to
receive a capitalization grant.
New section 602(b)(12) of the Act requires States to use
any fees charged to loan applicants that are considered program
income solely for the purpose of financing administrative costs
or financing projects or activities eligible for assistance
from the fund.
New section 602(b)(13) of the Act directs States, beginning
in fiscal year 2011, to require loan applicants to evaluate the
cost and effectiveness of the processes, materials, techniques,
and technologies for carrying out the purposes of the Act, and
alternative ways to finance and manage water infrastructure
projects.
The Committee is aware that communities are feeling
considerable pressure to improve the management of their
wastewater systems to reduce capital, operation, and
maintenance costs and maintain sustainable systems. Several
communities have begun to utilize ``innovative'' ways of
integrating decentralized, distributed, and nonstructural
wastewater management approaches, including the use of trees or
vegetation in urban areas (``green infrastructure''), to reduce
the need for expanded publicly owned treatment works
infrastructure, and to better manage, reduce, or reuse
stormwater. Other communities are exploring alternative ways to
design, finance, or manage wastewater infrastructure projects
to reduce their overall capital, operation and maintenance
costs, while providing the same or potentially greater water
quality improvement benefits. Yet, communities may be reluctant
to implement these innovative approaches or methods for various
reasons.
The Committee has received testimony on the importance of
encouraging communities to explore alternative means to address
wastewater treatment needs, including alternative approaches to
respond to local water quality needs, such as the use of
decentralized, distributed, and nonstructural wastewater
management approaches, addressing wastewater infrastructure
needs on a regional basis, or the consolidation of smaller
systems into larger treatment works. The Committee also has
received testimony on the potential reductions in overall
energy consumption that can be achieved at new and existing
wastewater treatment operations through the use of existing
energy efficiency technologies and renewable energy sources.
Finally, the Committee has received testimony on the
importance of addressing the need for additional funding for
wastewater infrastructure projects, including through
alternative financing approaches, such as increased leveraging
of state revolving funds, rate structures, or encouraging
additional capital investment, both public and private, to
close the overall funding gap in wastewater infrastructure
needs.
New section 602(b)(13) of the Act seeks to encourage loan
recipients to explore additional options for processes,
materials, techniques, and technologies for improving water
quality, and, where possible, to maximize the potential for
efficient water use, reuse, and conservation, and energy
conservation.
This paragraph also seeks to encourage loan recipients to
consider alternative approaches for designing, financing, and
managing projects (including, where appropriate, rate
structure, issuance of bonds, restructuring, regional
alternatives, consolidation, and cooperation between the public
and private sectors) for which assistance is sought under the
Clean Water SRF program. This paragraph does not require that
any particular option be selected or that every option need be
analyzed, but encourages loan recipients to consider an array
of options that are appropriate to meet their local needs and
improve local water quality.
New section 602(b)(14) of the Act directs States to use at
least 10 percent of their annual capitalization grant to assist
small municipalities serving fewer than 10,000 individuals that
meet a state's affordability criteria, to the extent that there
are sufficient applications for such assistance. This
percentage is consistent with EPA's assessment of the need for
communities with populations of 10,000 or fewer, as identified
in the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress.
New section 602(b)(15) of the Act requires States to
utilize a Federal or equivalent state qualifications-based
selection process for the negotiation of architectural and
engineering services on the basis of demonstrated performance
and qualification for the type of professional services
required at a fair and reasonable price. A qualifications-based
selection process is a competitive procedure that takes into
account qualifications and experience, as well as cost, in
relation to the work performed.
New section 602(b)(16) of the Act establishes the Davis-
Bacon prevailing wage requirement for the construction of
treatment works carried out with assistance made available by
the state revolving fund, section 205(m), or both. Section 513
of the Act provides that ``all laborers and mechanics employed
by contractors or subcontractors on treatment works for which
grants are made under this Act shall be paid wages at rates not
less than those prevailing for the same type of work on similar
construction in the immediate locality.'' New section
602(b)(16) requires the application of the Davis-Bacon
requirements for the construction of treatment works carried
out in whole or in part with assistance made available from
state revolving loan funds under Title VI, funds from section
205(m) of the Act, or both. This amendment authorizes the
application of the prevailing wage requirements to construction
projects carried out with any financial assistance from the
state revolving fund, whether the source of assistance
originates from Federal capitalization grant funds, state
matching funds, repayments to the fund, interest payments, or
other sources of income to the state revolving fund, and
whether the character of the assistance is through loans, loan
guarantees, or other types of assistance authorized by section
603(d).
By establishing the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement
for the construction of treatment works, the Committee
continues its long-standing practice of ensuring the
application of Davis-Bacon where Federal funds are provided for
construction, such as the State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs)
established under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, and reauthorized in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. For
the Clean Water SRFs, the most significant source of revenue in
the state revolving funds is the Federal capitalization grant.
As Congress has done in 63 separate instances for Federally-
funded construction, the Davis-Bacon Act should permanently
apply to the Clean Water SRFs.
Prevailing wage laws are intended to provide a fair wage
for publicly funded construction. By requiring prevailing
wages, lower cost, out-of-state contractors are prevented from
having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded
construction. Local interests are better able to compete when
on equal footing with out-of-state competitors, and local
construction workers are protected.
In addition, the Committee believes that the Davis-Bacon
Act protects communities by ensuring that prevailing wage
determinations for individual counties are based solely on the
local workforce costs where the construction projects is to be
undertaken. In 1981, the U.S. Department of Labor specifically
amended the implementing regulations for the Davis-Bacon Act to
prohibit the Department from including any wage data collected
from urban areas, and applying the data in a wage determination
for a nearby rural county.
As noted in the Code of Federal Regulations, ``In making a
wage determination * * * projects in metropolitan counties may
not be used as a source of data for a wage determination in a
rural county, and projects in rural counties may not be used as
a source of data for a wage determination for a metropolitan
county.'' (29 CFR Subtitle A 1.7 (a) and (b)).
Also, studies have shown that the application of the
prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act attract
more experienced and better trained workers who are often more
productive than workers with less training and experience. This
increase in productivity often results in the completion of
construction project ahead of schedule, reducing the overall
cost of the project, and offsetting any increased costs dues to
higher hourly wage rates. Labor costs, traditionally speaking,
account for less than one-third of total construction costs,
with the costs of land and materials having a much larger
impact on the total costs of projects.
Section 1303. Water pollution control revolving loan funds
(a) Projects and Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
Subsection (a) amends section 603(c) of the Act to expand
the types of projects and activities eligible for assistance
through each state revolving fund. Current law authorizes funds
from the state revolving fund to be used for providing
financial assistance (1) to any municipality or intermunicipal,
interstate, or state agency for construction of publicly owned
treatment works; (2) for the implementation of a nonpoint
source management program under section 319 of the Act; and (3)
for the development and implementation of a conservation and
management plan under the National Estuary Program (section 320
of the Act). Subsection (a) expands the types of projects and
activities eligible for assistance to include: the
implementation of lake protection programs and projects under
section 314 of the Act; the repair and replacement of
decentralized wastewater treatment systems that treat domestic
sewage; measures to manage, reduce, treat, or reuse municipal
stormwater, agricultural stormwater, and return flows from
irrigated agriculture; projects for water conservation,
efficiency, or reuse; and the development and implementation of
watershed pilot projects under section 122 of the Act (as
amended by this legislation).
In the 110th Congress, the Committee reported H.R. 720, the
``Water Quality Financing Act of 2007'', to reauthorize
appropriations for the Clean Water SRFs. H.R. 720, as passed
the House, included language that specifically enumerated
``measures to increase the security of publicly owned treatment
works'' as an eligible use for the Clean Water SRFs. The
Committee is aware that the implementation of certain security
measures at publicly owned treatment works is an eligible use
of the Clean Water SRF under current law, and, accordingly the
measures do not need to be specifically enumerated in the
potential amendments to section 603(c) contained in this Act.
The Committee intends that the implementation of certain
security measures continue to be an eligible use of the Clean
Water SRFs, to the extent that such measures are eligible under
existing law.
(b) Extended Repayment Period.--
Subsection (b) amends section 603(d)(1) of the Act to
authorize States to extend the repayment period for a loan from
the state revolving fund from the current statutory limit of 20
years to 30 years or the expected design life of the project
financed with the proceeds of the loan, whichever period is
shorter. A longer repayment period should assist in increasing
the affordability of wastewater infrastructure projects.
(c) Fiscal Sustainability Plan.--
Subsection (c) amends section 603(d)(1) of the Act to
require, as a condition of eligibility for a loan from the
state revolving fund, that the loan recipient develop and
implement, for any portion of the treatment works proposed for
repair, replacement, or expansion, a fiscal sustainability plan
for that portion. The fiscal sustainability plan shall include:
an inventory of the critical assets for that portion of the
treatment works proposed for repair, replacement, or expansion;
an evaluation of the condition and performance of the
inventory; and a plan for maintaining, repairing, and, as
necessary, replacing that portion, including a plan for funding
such activities. Implementation of a fiscal sustainability plan
should encourage communities to more efficiently manage and
maintain their wastewater infrastructure.
(d) Administrative Expenses.--
Subsection (d) amends section 603(d)(7) of the Act to
authorize States to utilize either four percent of the
capitalization grant (current law), $400,000 a year, or up to
one-fifth of one percent of the total valuation of the state
revolving fund, whichever amount is greatest, for
administrative expenses, plus any fees collected for such
purposes.
(e) Technical, Planning, and Equipment Replacement Expenses
for Small Systems.--
Subsection (e) amends section 603(d) of the Act to
authorize States to utilize a portion of their annual
capitalization grant to provide assistance, in the form of a
grant, to certain communities for technical, planning, and
other assistance in the management of publicly owned treatment
works.
New paragraph 603(d)(8) authorizes States to provide grants
to owners and operators of publicly owned treatment works that
serve a population of 10,000 or fewer for obtaining technical,
planning, and equipment replacement assistance. This subsection
should assist communities of fewer than 10,000 individuals
plan, manage, and maintain their wastewater infrastructure.
New paragraph 603(d)(9) authorizes a state to provide
grants to owners and operators of publicly owned treatment
works for conducting an assessment of the energy and water
consumption of the treatment works, and for evaluating
potential opportunities for energy and water conservation
through facility operation and maintenance, equipment
replacement, and projects or activities that promote the
efficient use of energy and water by the treatment works. The
Committee has received testimony that a potential barrier to
the implementation of energy- and water-efficient technologies
is a lack of information on the potential benefits that
implementation of these technologies can provide to publicly
owned treatment works. For example, witnesses testified on the
potential benefits of implementation of water- and energy-
efficient technologies at publicly owned treatment works,
including potential cost savings for both capital expenditures
and short- and long-term operation and maintenance costs of the
treatment works, as well as water quality improvements and
measures to reduce carbon emissions by the use of renewable
energy sources.
(f) Additional Subsidization.--
Subsection (f) amends section 603 of the Act to authorize
States to provide increased financial flexibility in the form
of additional subsidization, including forgiveness of principal
and negative interest loans to municipalities: (1) that are
economically disadvantaged based on affordability criteria
established by the State; (2) that do not meet the State's
affordability criteria as a whole, but have discrete, definable
subpopulations or neighborhoods that will experience a
significant hardship from increased rates, provided that any
additional subsidization will directly benefit those
ratepayers; or (3) that implement a process, material,
technique, or technology to address water-efficient goals,
address energy-efficiency goals, mitigate stormwater runoff, or
encourage environmentally sensitive project planning, design,
and construction.
The Committee has received testimony on the existence of
disadvantaged communities throughout the nation that are
experiencing significant challenges financing the wastewater
infrastructure improvements necessary to achieve improvements
in water quality, even with the advantage of below-market rates
offered by the Clean Water SRF. Subsection 1303(f) authorizes a
state revolving fund to provide certain disadvantaged
communities, and targeted populations within communities, with
additional financial subsidizations to assist them in meeting
their wastewater infrastructure needs.
As noted in the discussion on section 1302(b), the
Committee has also received testimony on the efforts of
communities to reduce the need for expanded publicly owned
treatment works infrastructure through the use of innovative
and alternative means to respond to local water quality needs.
Subsection 1303(f) also authorizes a state revolving fund to
provide increased financial flexibility to implement processes,
materials, techniques, and technologies, to address water-
efficiency goals, to address energy-efficiency goals, to
mitigate stormwater runoff, or to encourage environmentally
sensitive project planning, design, and construction. The
Committee intends that projects and project categories for
water-efficient, energy-efficient, green infrastructure, and
environmentally innovative projects that are identified in
Attachment 7 of EPA's March 2, 2009 guidance for the ``Award of
Capitalization Grants with Funds Appropriated by P.L. 111-5,
the `American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009' '' would
be eligible for the additional subsidization authorized by new
section 603(i)(1)(B) of the Act.
Moreover, subsection (f) requires States to establish
affordability criteria on or before September 30, 2010, to
assist in identifying municipalities that would experience
significant hardship from rate increases necessary to finance
the construction of publicly owned treatment works. Subsection
(f) allows States to use existing criteria that meet the
requirements of this subsection.
New section 603(i)(3) of the Act, as amended by this
legislation, authorizes States to give priority to a project by
a municipality, or an intermunicipal, interstate, or state
agency for the construction of a publicly owned treatment work
if the recipient of the funds meets the State's affordability
criteria.
New section 603(i)(4) of the Act, as amended by this
subsection, requires States to use 25 percent of any increases
in a Federal capitalization grant allotted to the State in
fiscal years where the Administrator has available for
obligation funds of more than $1 billion to provide additional
subsidization, provided that eligible projects are identified
for funding on a state's priority list. This subsection places
an overall cap of 30 percent of the total amount of
capitalization grants received by the State on the amount of
additional subsidization that the State may provide.
Section 1304. Allotment of funds
Subsection (a)(1) preserves the current statutory state
revolving fund allotment formula for capitalization grants
(section 205 of the Act, as modified) for the first $1.35
billion of any future fiscal year appropriation. Subsection (c)
directs the Administrator, after notice and public comment, to
publish a new allotment formula based on water quality needs in
accordance with the most recent state survey of needs. For
fiscal year 2012 and thereafter, subsection (a)(2) directs the
Administrator to allocate any appropriated funds for the state
revolving fund in excess of $1.35 billion in accordance with
the revised formula.
Subsection (b) amends section 604(b) of the Act to increase
the amount States may reserve for water quality management
planning (section 205(j) of the Act) and state continuing
planning processes (section 303(e) of the Act) from the current
statutory limit of one percent of the annual state
capitalization grant to two percent of such grant.
Section 1305. Intended use plan
(a) Integrated Priority List.--
Section 1305(a) requires States to develop, after notice
and comment and within one year, a methodology for prioritizing
wastewater infrastructure projects and activities based on the
greatest degree of water quality improvement, while taking into
consideration whether funds will be used toward compliance with
the enforceable deadlines, goals, and requirements of the Act,
and the affordability of projects and activities to individual
communities. This subsection requires States to use this
methodology to develop, for each future fiscal year beginning
in fiscal year 2011, an integrated priority list for all
projects and activities for which financial assistance is
sought from the state revolving fund.
To address the potential that smaller, individual projects
or activities to address nonpoint sources of pollution may not
rank sufficiently high on the State's priority list, this
subsection directs States to group categories or subcategories
of projects or activities to address nonpoint sources of
pollution on the State's priority list in lieu of specific
projects or activities.
(b) Intended Use Plan.--
Section 1305(b) amends section 606(c) of the Act to require
States to annually prepare and publish its intended use plan,
to provide notice and comment on the State's priority list, as
part of the State's intended use plan, and to provide an
explanation if the State does not fund projects on its intended
use plan in priority order.
(c) Transitional Provision.--
Section 1305(c) allows States to use existing statutory
provisions governing priority lists and intended use plans
until the methodology required under this legislation is
developed.
Section 1306. Annual reports
This section amends section 606(d) of the Act to require
that States include, as part of their existing reporting
requirements to EPA, a list of the eligible purposes for which
state revolving funds are provided.
Section 1307. Technical assistance; requirements for use of American
materials
This section amends the Act to direct the Administrator to
assist States in establishing simplified procedures for
obtaining financial assistance from the state revolving fund,
and to reinstate the applicability of the Buy American Act to
the construction of treatment works funded by the Clean Water
Act.
New section 607 of the Act requires the Administrator,
after notice and comment, to publish a manual to assist
eligible recipients in obtaining financial assistance from the
state revolving fund. This section directs the Administrator,
at the request of a State and after notice and comment, to
assist in the development of criteria for a State to determine
compliance with the conditions of funding assistance under
sections 602(b)(13) and 603(d)(1)(E) of the Act.
New section 608 of the Act requires that treatment works
constructed with funds made available by a state water
pollution control revolving fund utilize steel, iron, and
manufactured goods produced in the United States. New
subsection 608(b) provides three exemptions from this
requirement in any case in which the Administrator, in
consultation with the Governor of the State, finds that: (1)
the use of United States' steel, iron, and manufactured goods
would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) steel,
iron, and manufactured goods are not produced in United States
in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a
satisfactory quality; or (3) inclusion of steel, iron, and
manufactured goods produced in the United States will increase
the overall cost of the project by more than 25 percent. New
subsection 608(c) provides specific requirements for public
notification for, and written justification of, a waiver of the
provisions in subsection 608(a).
Section 1308. Authorization of appropriations
This section authorizes appropriations of $13.8 billion
over five years for the capitalization of state revolving
funds, as follows: $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2010, $2.7
billion in fiscal year 2011, $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2012,
$2.9 billion in fiscal year 2013, and $3 billion in fiscal year
2014.
Subtitle D--General Provisions
Section 1401. Definition of treatment works
This section amends the definitions section of the Act
(section 502) to make the definition of ``treatment works''
found in section 212 of the Act applicable to the entire Act.
Section 1402. Funding for Indian Programs
This section increases the authorized set-aside from state
revolving loan funding for Indian Programs from the current law
amount of one-half of one percent to not more than 1.5 percent
of the total Federal appropriation for the capitalization of
state revolving funds.
Subtitle E--Tonnage Duties
Section 1501. Tonnage duties
This section restores the Vessel Tonnage Duties to the
rates that were in effect from 1990 to 2002. Vessel Tonnage
Duties are imposed on the cargo-carrying capacity of vessels
that enter the United States from any foreign port or place, or
depart from and return to a United States Port or place on a
``voyage to nowhere''. The Duties are assessed regardless of
whether the vessel is empty or carrying cargo. These fees are
intended to offset the cost of activities performed by the U.S.
Coast Guard that benefit these vessels, such as marine safety,
search and rescue, and aids to navigation. The Coast Guard
spends far more on these activities than is currently being
collected by this fee.
Beginning in 1909, a tonnage duty of two cents per ton, not
to exceed ten cents per ton in a single year, was imposed on
vessels arriving in the United States from a foreign port in
North America, Central America, the West India Islands, the
Bahaman Islands, and Newfoundland. A duty of six cents per ton,
not to exceed 30 cents per ton in a single year, was imposed
for vessels arriving in the United States from foreign ports
anywhere else in the world.
In 1990, Congress adjusted the tonnage duties to reflect
the inflation increase from 1915 to 1990. Congress extended the
fees at the 1990-adjusted rates in 1993 and 1997. These tonnage
duties remained in effect from fiscal years 1990 through 2002.
In 2005, Congress partially reinstated the 1990-adjusted
tonnage duties through fiscal year 2010.
Specifically, section 1501(a) increases the 4.5-cent-per-
ton duty to nine cents per ton, not to exceed in the aggregate
45 cents per ton in any year, and the 13.5-cent-per-ton duty to
27 cents per ton, not to exceed $1.35 per ton in a year. The
tonnage duty applies to the first five entries into the United
States each year by a vessel. These rates would be in effect
for fiscal years 2010 through 2019.
Section 1501(b) provides that any tonnage duties owed under
Chapter 603 of title 46, United States Code, are a liability
against the vessel in rem, and can be proceeded against in any
United States district court in which the vessel may be found.
The Committee is concerned that increases and decreases in
tonnage fees have not always been implemented by the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security in a timely manner. The current national
deficit makes it imperative that the increase in tonnage duties
under this section be collected as soon as possible. The
Committee will vigorously oversee the implementation of this
increase in tonnage duties to ensure that CBP implements and
collects the increase in tonnage duties provided in this
section in accordance with the law.
Title II--Alternative Water Source Projects
Section 2001 amends section 220 of the Clean Water Act to
authorize appropriations of $50 million for each of fiscal
years 2010 through 2014, for a total of $250 million, for EPA
grants for alternative water source projects.
Title III--Sewer Overflow Control Grants
Section 3001. Sewer overflow control grants
Subsection (a) amends section 221(e) of the Act to require
that a project that receives assistance under this section is
carried out in accordance with the requirements for projects
receiving assistance from State Revolving Loan Funds under
title VI of the Clean Water Act, except to the extent that the
Governor of the State in which the project is located
determines that a requirement of title VI is inconsistent with
the purposes of this section. This section allows States to
implement grants under section 221 in conjunction with a
state's Clean Water SRF program.
Subsection (b) amends section 221(f) of the Act to
authorize appropriations of $1.8 billion over five years,
providing $250 million in fiscal year 2010, $300 million in
fiscal year 2011, $350 million in fiscal year 2012, $400
million in fiscal year 2013, and $500 million in fiscal year
2014.
Subsection (c) amends section 221(g) of the Act to update
the provision for allocation of funds to reflect the new dates
of authorization and reauthorized amounts. Specifically,
consistent with section 221 as originally enacted, funding in
the first year of authorization is to be used for direct grants
by the Administrator to municipalities. For fiscal year 2011
and thereafter, the Administrator will allocate funds to
States, in accordance with a needs-based formula to be
established by the Administrator, and such funds are to be used
by states to make grants to municipalities.
Subsection (d) amends section 221(i) of the Act to change
the date that the Administrator is required to transmit to
Congress a report containing recommended funding levels for
grants under this section from December 31, 2003, to December
31, 2012.
Title IV--Monitoring, Reporting, and Public Notification of Sewer
Overflows
Section 4001. Monitoring, reporting, and public notification of sewer
overflows
This section amends section 402 of the Act by adding a new
subsection (s) to provide a uniform, national standard for
monitoring, reporting, and public notification of combined
sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. The monitoring,
notification, and reporting requirements of this section are
important steps to protect human health and the environment by
ensuring that public health authorities (and other affected
entities) and the public are aware of sewer overflows, may take
steps to avoid contact with overflows, and that sewer overflows
are addressed in an expedited manner. In addition, the
availability of comprehensive information on the number,
frequency, and location of sewer overflows may provide
additional support for increased investment in the nation's
water related infrastructure to reduce sewer overflows.
New subsection (s)(1) requires that, after the last day of
the 180-day period beginning on the date on which regulations
are issued under new subsection (s)(4), the Administrator (or
the State, as the case may be) shall require that each permit
issued under this section for a publicly owned treatment works
shall require, at a minimum, that the owner or operator of the
treatment works implement the monitoring, notification, and
reporting requirements described in this subsection.
The Committee intends the term ``publicly owned treatment
works'' to include those devices and systems included within
the term ``treatment works'', as defined by section 212 of the
Act, that are under the ownership or operational control of the
Federal Government, or a state or a municipality as such terms
are defined in section 502 of the Act. New subsection (s)(1)
does not include treatment works that are not owned or under
the operational control of the Federal Government, a state, or
a municipality. New subsection (s)(1) also does not require a
publicly owned treatment works to assume monitoring,
notification, and reporting responsibility for satellite
collection systems (portions of a sanitary sewer system) that
may be connected to, but are not owned or operated by the
publicly owned treatment works. The Committee notes that EPA's
draft SSO rule (January 2001) would have included satellite
collection systems within the scope of its authority. Satellite
collection systems account for a majority of sanitary sewer
overflows that occur throughout the nation. Although the
provisions of this title do not require a publicly owned
treatment works to assume monitoring, notification, and
reporting responsibility for a satellite collection system
which is not owned or operated by the treatment works, the
Committee believes that implementation of a monitoring,
notification, and reporting program for satellite collection
systems would further the goals of the Clean Water Act, as
amended by this title.
New subsection (s)(1)(A) requires the owner or operator of
a publicly owned treatment works to institute and utilize a
feasible methodology, technology, or management program to
alert the owner or operator of the publicly owned treatment
works to the occurrence of a sewer overflow in a timely manner.
The Act, as amended by this title, does not define the
terms ``feasible'' and ``timely'', but directs the
Administrator to conduct a formal rulemaking to define such
terms under new subsection (s)(4). The Committee expects that
the implementation monitoring methodologies, technologies, or
management programs that meet the ``feasible'' and ``timely''
requirements will be reasonably sufficient to provide the owner
or operator with actual or constructive knowledge of the
presence of a sewer overflow.
The Committee does not intend new subsection (s)(1)(A) to
require the implementation of a technology-based system at
every treatment works to monitor for potential sewer overflows,
but allows individual publicly owned treatment works to utilize
appropriate methodologies, technologies, or management programs
that will alert the owner or operator of sewer overflows,
consistent with the Agency's regulations under new subsection
(s)(4). The Committee does intend that whatever approved
methodology, technology, or management program is utilized for
monitoring, that such methodology, technology, or management
program is fully-implemented and adequately maintained, funded,
or staffed to ensure that the owner or operator is alerted to
the occurrence of a sewer overflow.
New subsection (s)(1)(B) and (C) require the owner or
operator of a publicly owned treatment works to provide notice
in the event of a sewer overflow. New subsection (s)(1)(B)
requires owners and operators to notify the public of a sewer
overflow that has the ``potential to affect human health'' as
soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the time
the owner or operator knows of the overflow. New subsection
(s)(1)(C) requires owners or operators to notify public health
authorities and other affected entities, such as public water
systems, of a sewer overflow that may imminently and
substantially endanger human health immediately after the owner
or operator knows of the overflow.
The Act, as amended by this title, does not define the
terms ``potential to affect human health'' or ``imminently and
substantially endanger human health'', but directs the
Administrator to conduct a formal rulemaking to define such
terms under new subsection (s)(4). In addition, new subsection
(s)(4) directs the Administrator to establish a set of criteria
for communication measures that are sufficient to give notice
under new subsections (s)(1)(B) and (C).
The Committee intends that the regulations promulgated by
the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to
notification not preclude States, municipalities, or individual
publicly owned treatment works from adopting more stringent
notification requirements than called for by this title. The
Committee intends to provide States, municipalities, and
individual publicly owned treatment works with the maximum
amount of flexibility for the adoption of individually tailored
notification programs, provided that such programs meet the
minimum standards called for by the Act, as amended by this
title, including any regulations promulgated pursuant to this
title.
Subsection (s)(2)(A) provides a limited exemption from the
notice requirements of subsections (s)(1)(B) and (s)(1)(C) for
a sewer overflow that is limited to a wastewater backup into a
single-family residence (as this term is defined in new
subsection (s)(7)(C)). The Committee has provided this limited
exemption because, in practice, it is likely that residents of
the single-family residence will already know of the backup
into the residence, and in many cases, will likely have
provided notice to the owner or operator of the publicly owned
treatment works. The Committee felt that a limited exemption
from the notice was warranted to avoid the likelihood that the
residents of the single-family residence will notify the
publicly owned treatment works, only to be later notified by
the same treatment works as to the presence of the sewer
overflow. This exemption, however, does not apply to a sanitary
sewer overflow or municipal combined sewer overflow that is
released outside of a single-family residence, or to such
overflows in a residence that does not meet the definition of a
single-family residence found in new subsection (s)(7)(C). For
example, if a sewer overflow occurs in a multi-family
structure, such as an apartment building, condominium, or
dormitory, and the overflow reaches the common areas of such
structure (e.g., a common hallway, laundry facility, foyer, or
entryway), the owner or operator of the treatment works is
required to provide notice to appropriate persons under
subsections (s)(1)(B) and (s)(1)(C).
New subsections (s)(1)(D) and (s)(1)(E) require the owner
or operator of a publicly owned treatment works to report sewer
overflows to the Administrator or the State. New subsection
(s)(1)(D) requires an owner or operator to report each sewer
overflow on its discharge monitoring report, including
information on the magnitude, duration, and suspected cause of
the overflow, the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate,
or prevent the recurrence of the overflow, and the steps taken
or planned to mitigate the impact of the overflow. New
subsection (s)(1)(E) requires the owner or operator to report
the total number of sewer overflows that occur in a calendar
year, including specific details on the volume of wastewater
released per incident, the duration of each sewer overflow, the
location of the overflow and any potentially affected receiving
waters, the responses taken to clean up the overflow, and any
actions taken to mitigate the impacts of the overflow and to
avoid further future overflows at the site.
New subsection (s)(2)(B) provides a limited exemption from
the reporting requirements of subsections (s)(1)(D) and
(s)(1)(E) for the release of wastewater that: (1) occurs in the
course of maintenance of the treatment works; (2) is managed
consistently with the treatment works' best management
practices; and (3) is intended to prevent overflows. The
Committee has provided this limited exemption to address
routine maintenance of sewer systems, such as activities to
clear our sewer lines. The Committee intends this exemption to
be read narrowly, that it be limited to releases that are both
de minimus in terms of both duration and volume, and meet all
of the requirements listed in the exemption. The reporting
requirement exemption in subsection (s)(2)(B) does not include
releases in connection with a ``bypass'' or ``upset'', as those
terms are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
122.41 (m) and (n) (2008)).
New subsection (s)(3) requires individual States to provide
an annual summary report to the Administrator on sewer
overflows that occurred within the State.
New subsection (s)(4) directs the Administrator, within one
year of the date of enactment of this title, to finalize and
issue regulations to implement new subsection (s), including
regulations to provide additional clarity on the terms
``feasible'', ``timely'', ``potential to affect human health'',
and ``imminently and substantially endanger human health''.
In defining the term ``feasible'', the Committee expects
the Administrator to consider: (1) the availability of a
monitoring technology, methodology, or management program; (2)
the ability of a technology, methodology, or management program
to reasonably detect the occurrence of a sewer overflow; (3)
the cost of implementing the technology, methodology, or
management program; (4) the designated use of potential
receiving waters; (5) the proximity of an overflow to a source
of drinking water or a recreation water; (6) the potential
public health implications of an overflow to the public, with
particular emphasis on susceptible populations; (7) the size of
the publicly owned treatment works (in terms of population
served and the treatment capacity of the treatment works); (8)
the nature or quality of pollutants contained in the raw waste
load of the treatment works wastewater; (9) the frequency,
volume, and duration of past sewer overflows by a particular
publicly owned treatment works; and (10) other factors that the
Administrator considers appropriate.
In defining the term ``timely'', the Committee expects the
Administrator to ensure that the owner or operator of the
publicly owned treatment work has knowledge of the sewer
overflow as quickly as practicable, depending upon the
monitoring technology, methodology, or management program
implemented by the owner or operator, and consistent with the
public health goals of this title and goals of the Clean Water
Act ``to restore and maintain the chemical, and physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''
New subsection (s)(4)(B) directs the Administrator to
include site specific conditions within its regulatory
definition for the terms ``feasible'' and ``timely''.
New subsection (s)(5) authorizes the Administrator to
review and approve a legally enforceable state notification
program that the Administrator determines is substantially
equivalent to or exceeds the requirements of new subsections
(s)(1)(B) and (s)(1)(C), and to withdraw authorization of such
program if a state in not administering or enforcing the
program.
New subsection (s)(6) provides that notification
requirements contained in new subsections (s)(1)(B) and
(s)(1)(C) shall apply to owners and operators of publicly owned
treatment works beginning on the last day of the 30-day period
beginning on the date of issuance of regulations under new
subsection (s)(4). While the issuance of regulations under new
subsection (s)(4) should serve as notice of the revised
notification requirements applicable to owners and operators of
publicly owned treatment works, the Committee encourages EPA
(or the State, as the case may be) to provide such owners and
operators with reasonable notice of any new notification
requirements established by such regulations.
New subsection (s)(7) defines the terms ``sanitary sewer
overflow'', ``sewer overflow'', and ``single family residence''
as such terms are utilized in new subsection (s). The
definition for ``sanitary sewer overflows'' is modeled after
the definition for such term in EPA's proposed rule for
``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit Requirements for Municipal Sanitary Sewer Collection
Systems, Municipal Satellite Collection Systems, and Sanitary
Sewer Overflows,'' signed by the Administrator on January 4,
2001.
The term ``sewer overflow'' is defined to include both
sanitary sewer overflows and municipal combined sewer
overflows.
The term ``single-family residence'' is defined as an
individual dwelling unit, including an apartment, condominium,
house, or dormitory, but specifically excludes common areas
from multi-dwelling structures. The definition for ``single-
family residence'' is utilized to define the scope of the
limited exemption for notice of sewer overflows found in
subsections (s)(1)(B) and (s)(1)(C).
Additional matters
The monitoring, notification, and reporting requirements of
title IV of H.R. 1262 are not intended to preclude or deny any
right of a State, municipality, or individual publicly owned
treatment works from implementing monitoring, notification, or
reporting requirements that are more stringent or comprehensive
than those contained in such title or the regulations
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency to implement
such title. Accordingly, States, municipalities, and individual
publicly owned treatment works may adopt or enforce any
regulation, requirement, or permit condition with respect to
the monitoring, notification, and reporting that is more
stringent than a regulation, requirement, or permit condition
issued under the Act, as amended by title IV of H.R. 1262.
In addition, the additional monitoring, notification, and
reporting requirements made by title IV of H.R. 1262 do not
explicitly or implicitly authorize sanitary sewer overflows or
municipal combined sewer overflows outside of the existing
statutory requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Finally, the Committee intends that the amendments to the
Clean Water Act made by title IV of H.R. 1262 will continue to
allow for the utilization of the Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy (under Sec. 402(q) of the Clean Water Act) to
the extent that the monitoring, notification, and reporting
requirements contained in the nine minimum controls and long
term control plan of an individual publicly owned treatment
works are not inconsistent with the requirements of title IV of
H.R. 1262. To the extent that an individual publicly owned
treatment works' nine minimum controls or long-term control
plan either does not include monitoring, notification, or
reporting requirements, or such requirements are inconsistent
with the requirements of title IV of H.R. 1262, the monitoring,
notification, or reporting requirements contained in title IV
of H.R. 1262, and the implementing regulations promulgated by
the Environmental Protection Agency shall apply.
Title V--Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization
Section 5001. Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern
This section amends section 118(c)(12)(H) of the Act to
increase the overall authorization of appropriations for
section 118(c)(12) from $50 million to $150 million for each of
fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
Section 5002. Public information program
This section amends section 118(c)(13) of the Act to
reauthorize appropriations for EPA's public information program
for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
Section 5003. Contaminated sediment remediation approaches,
technologies, and techniques
This section amends section 106(b)(1) of the Great Lakes
Legacy Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1271a) to reauthorize
appropriations, at increased levels, for a program within the
Environmental Protection Agency to demonstrate potential
contaminated sediment remediation approaches, technologies, and
techniques.
The Committee strongly supports the establishment of a
program within EPA to develop innovative approaches,
technologies, and techniques for the remediation of
contaminated sediment within the Great Lakes areas of concern.
The Committee believes that this program could be instrumental
in developing new technologies for the remediation of
contaminated sediment which could substantially reduce the
overall cost of remediation activities for contaminate sediment
projects, both within the Great Lakes areas of concern as well
as nationwide.
Consistent with House Report 107-587 (Part 1), the
Committee expects that the Administrator will collaborate with
non-Federal entities, including colleges, universities, and
private entities, in carrying out the Administrator's
responsibilities under this section. In selecting non-Federal
entities to participate in demonstration projects under this
section, the Administrator is directed to give preference to
non-Federal entities located within the Great Lakes watershed.
Legislative History and Committee Consideration
TITLE I--WATER QUALITY FINANCING
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment has
held numerous hearings on the nation's wastewater
infrastructure needs and the importance of a renewed commitment
to addressing these needs. On March 28, 2001, the Subcommittee
held a hearing entitled ``Water Infrastructure Needs''. On
March 19, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled
``Meeting the Nation's Wastewater Infrastructure Needs''. On
April 28, 2004, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled
``Aging Water Supply Infrastructure''. On June 8 and 14, 2005,
the Subcommittee held a series of hearings entitled ``Financing
Water Infrastructure Projects''. On January 19, 2007, the
Subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``The Need for Renewed
Investment in Clean Water Infrastructure''. On February 4,
2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``Sustainable
Wastewater Infrastructure''.
In prior Congresses, the Subcommittee has also developed
and considered numerous bills to reauthorize increasing
appropriations for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
In the 107th Congress, Representative John J. Duncan
introduced H.R. 3930, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2002.
On March 13, 2002, the Subcommittee held a legislative hearing
on H.R. 3930. On March 20, 2002, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session, and
ordered H.R. 3930 reported, as amended, to the House by voice
vote. No further action was taken on this bill.
In the 108th Congress, Representative John J. Duncan
introduced H.R. 1560, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2003.
This bill was largely based on H.R. 3930 from the 107th
Congress. On July 17, 2003, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment met in open session, and ordered H.R. 1560
reported, as amended, to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure by voice vote. No further action was taken on
this bill.
In the 109th Congress, Representative John J. Duncan
introduced H.R. 4560, the Clean Water Trust Act of 2005, to
create a national clean water trust fund as a means for
financing wastewater infrastructure needs. No further action
was taken on this legislation.
In the 110th Congress, Chairman James L. Oberstar
introduced H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.
On January 31, 2007, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment met in open session, and recommended H.R. 720, as
amended, favorably to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, by voice vote. On February 7, 2007, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open
session, and ordered the bill, as amended by the Subcommittee,
reported favorably to the House by recorded vote of 55-13.
On March 1, 2007, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session, to reconsider H.R. 720, as
ordered reported on February 7, 2007, to address a budget
scoring issue with the bill. The Committee agreed by voice vote
to a motion to reconsider the vote on ordering H.R. 720
reported favorably to the House as adopted by the Committee on
February 7, 2007. By unanimous consent, the Committee vacated
the question of ordering the bill reported, reconsidered the
bill for amendment, and ordered the bill, as amended by the
Committee, reported favorably to the House by voice vote. On
March 5, 2007, the Committee reported the bill to the House. H.
Rept. 110-30. On March 9, 2007, the House of Representatives
passed H.R. 720 by a vote of 303 to 108.
On September 17, 2008, the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate approved and ordered S. 3617, the
``Water Infrastructure Financing Act'', reported favorably to
the Senate. This legislation authorized $20 billion for the
Clean Water SRF program and $2 billion for grants to
municipalities to control combined sewer overflows and sanitary
sewer overflows under section 221 of the Clean Water Act. On
September 26, 2008, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works reported the bill to the Senate. S. Rept. 110-509. No
further action was taken on H.R. 720, as passed by the House,
or S. 3617, as reported by the Environment and Public Works
Committee.
On March 3, 2009, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced
H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. On March
4, 2009, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
met in open session to consider H.R. 1262 and recommended the
bill favorably to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure by voice vote. On March 5, 2009, the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session to
consider H.R. 1262 and adopted, by voice vote, an amendment
that made a technical change to the bill. The Committee ordered
the bill, as amended, reported favorably to the House by voice
vote.
TITLE II--ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS
On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a hearing on Member project requests for
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. Among the Member
project requests discussed at the hearing and received by the
Subcommittee were requests for water reuse projects to augment
water supplies, although single-purpose municipal and
industrial water supply projects are not a primary mission of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and are cost-shared as 100
percent reimbursable.
In the 109th Congress, H.R. 1359 was introduced on March
17, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session on May 18, 2005, to consider
H.R. 1359 and other legislation. The Committee adopted by voice
vote an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment
removed the fiscal year limitation on the authorization of
appropriations, leaving the total amount authorized at $125
million. The Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported
to the House by voice vote. On July 13, 2005, the Committee
reported H.R. 1359 to the House. H. Rept. 109-167. No further
action was taken on this bill.
In the 110th Congress, Representative Jerry McNerney
introduced H.R. 700 on January 29, 2007. This legislation was
modeled after H.R. 1359, as approved by the Committee on May
18, 2005, and authorized appropriations of $125 million for EPA
to provide grants for alternative water source projects to meet
critical water supply needs. On January 31, 2007, the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment considered H.R.
700 and recommended the bill favorably to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure by voice vote. On February 7,
2007, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in
open session, and ordered the bill reported to the House by
voice vote. On February 16, 2007, the Committee reported H.R.
700 to the House. H. Rept. 110-15. On March 8, 2007, the House
of Representatives passed H.R. 700 by a vote of 368 to 59. No
further action was taken on this legislation.
On January 27, 2009, Representative Jerry McNerney
introduced H.R. 700. This legislation is modeled after H.R.
700, as approved by the Committee on February 7, 2007 and
passed by the House on March 8, 2007. The text of H.R. 700 is
incorporated as Title II of H.R. 1262. Further action is listed
under the description of Title I of H.R. 1262.
TITLE III--SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS
Over the last four Congresses, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure has approved legislation to
reauthorize appropriations for grants to address combined sewer
overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.
In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee held a legislative
hearing on H.R. 784, the ``Water Quality Investment Act of
2003'', on July 8, 2004. On July 15, 2004, the Subcommittee
adopted by voice vote an amendment to H.R. 784 in the nature of
a substitute. The amendment authorized $250 million for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2010. The amendment also made other
changes to section 221 to update the authority and to ensure
that States may administer these grants in the same way that
they administer loans from the State Revolving Loan Funds. The
Subcommittee recommended the bill, as amended, favorably to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, by voice vote.
On July 21, 2004, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session, and ordered the bill, as
amended by the Subcommittee, reported to the House by voice
vote. On September 13, 2004, the Committee reported H.R. 784 to
the House. H. Rept. 108-675. No further action was taken on
this legislation.
In the 109th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met on May 18, 2005, to consider H.R. 624, a
bill to authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control
grants. H.R. 624 was identical to H.R. 784, the Water Quality
Investment Act of 2003, as reported by the Committee in the
108th Congress, with the exception of updating the
authorization years from 2005 through 2010 to 2006 through
2011. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in
open session and ordered H.R. 624 reported to the House by
voice vote. On July 13, 2005, the Committee reported H.R. 624
to the House. H. Rept. 109-166. No further action was taken on
this legislation.
In the 110th Congress, Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr.
introduced H.R. 569 on January 18, 2007. This legislation was
modeled after H.R. 624, as approved by the Committee on May 18,
2005, and authorized appropriations of $3 billion over six
years for grants to address combined sewer overflows and
sanitary sewer overflows. On January 31, 2007, the Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment considered H.R. 569, and
recommended the bill, as amended, favorably to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, by voice vote. On February
7, 2007, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met
in open session, and ordered the bill, as amended by the
Subcommittee, reported to the House by voice vote. On February
16, 2007, the Committee reported H.R. 569 to the House. H.
Rept. 110-16. On March 7, 2007, the House of Representatives
approved H.R. 569 by a vote of 367 to 58.
On September 17, 2008, the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate approved and ordered S. 3617, the
``Water Infrastructure Financing Act'', reported favorably to
the Senate. This legislation authorized $20 billion for the
Clean Water SRF program and $2 billion for grants to
municipalities to control combined sewer overflows and sanitary
sewer overflows under section 221 of the Clean Water Act. On
September 26, 2008, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works reported the bill to the Senate. S. Rept. 110-509. No
further action was taken on H.R. 569, as passed by the House,
or S. 3617, as reported by the Environment and Public Works
Committee.
On February 4, 2009, Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr.
introduced H.R. 895. This legislation is modeled after H.R.
569, as approved by the Committee on February 7, 2007. The text
of H.R. 895 is incorporated as title III of H.R. 1262. Further
action is listed under the description of Title I of H.R. 1262.
TITLE IV--MONITORING, REPORTING, AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SEWER
OVERFLOWS
In the 109th Congress, Representative Timothy H. Bishop
introduced H.R. 1720, the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-
to-Know Act. No further action was taken on the legislation.
In the 110th Congress, Representative Timothy H. Bishop
introduced H.R. 2452, the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right-
to-Know Act, which was modeled after H.R. 1720 from the 109th
Congress.
On October 16, 2007, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held a hearing on the ``Raw Sewage Overflow
Community Right-to-Know Act'' in which representatives from the
Environmental Protection Agency, state and local government
officials, public health officials, and other stakeholders
testified on the issue of public notification of sewer
overflow.
On May 7, 2008, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment met to consider H.R. 2452. The Subcommittee
adopted, by voice vote, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute that made several technical and clarifying changes
to the bill. The Subcommittee approved H.R. 2452, as amended,
and favorably recommended it to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure by voice vote. On May 15, 2008, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open
session, and ordered H.R. 2452, as amended, reported to the
House by voice vote. On June 19, 2008, the Committee reported
H.R. 2452 to the House. H. Rept. 110-723.
On June 23, 2008, the House of Representatives considered
H.R. 2452, with minor modifications from the version that was
favorably reported from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. These modifications were to address a few
technical and transitional concerns that were unresolved before
the Committee markup, as well as to provide a mechanism for
States with active notification programs to petition EPA for
the ability to carry out the existing programs provided these
programs are determined to be functionally equivalent to the
national standard for State notification programs. On June 23,
2008, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 2452 by voice
vote. No further action was taken on this legislation.
On January 28, 2009, Representative Timothy H. Bishop
introduced H.R. 752, the Sewage Overflow Community Right to
Know Act. This legislation is modeled after H.R. 2452, as
passed the House of Representatives on June 23, 2008, with
minor changes. The text of sections 2 and 3 of H.R. 752 is
incorporated as Title IV of H.R. 1262. Further action is listed
under the description of Title I of H.R. 1262.
TITLE V--GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION
In the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held a hearing, entitled ``Reauthorization of
the Great Lakes Legacy Act'' on May 21, 2008.
On July 10, 2008, Representative Vernon Ehlers introduced
H.R. 6460, the ``Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of
2008''. No similar legislative proposal was introduced in
previous Congresses.
On July 31, 2008, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 6460. The
Committee adopted by voice vote an amendment in the nature of a
substitute that made several technical changes to the bill. The
Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported favorably to
the House by voice vote with a quorum present. On September 18,
2008, the Committee reported H.R. 6460 to the House. H. Rept.
110-849 Part 1. On September 18, 2008, the House of
Representatives approved H.R. 6460 by a vote of 371 to 20. On
September 25, 2008, the United States Senate approved H.R. 6460
with an amendment that: (1) reduced the authorization of
appropriations for projects to remediate contaminated sediments
under section 118(c)(12)(H) from $150 million annually for
fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to $50 million annually for
fiscal years 2009 and 2010; and (2) reduced the authorization
for section 106(b) of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 from
$5 million for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to $3
million for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. On September 28, 2008,
the House of Representatives approved H.R. 6460, as amended by
the Senate. This legislation was signed by the President on
October 8, 2008, as Pubic Law 110-365.
Title V of H.R. 1262 would increase the authorization of
appropriations for projects to remediate contaminated sediment
under section 118(c)(12)(H) to $150 million annually through
2014, and would increase the authorization of appropriations
for section 106(b) of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 to $5
million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Further
action is listed under the description of Title I of H.R. 1262.
Record Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. There
were no recorded votes taken in connection with consideration
of H.R. 1262 or ordering it reported. A motion to order H.R.
1262, as amended, reported favorably to the House was agreed to
by voice vote with a quorum present.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
Cost of Legislation
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office
included below.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objective of this legislation are to
accomplish the objectives, goals, and policies of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act by: (1) providing assistance for
the construction of publicly owned treatment works; for the
implementation of a nonpoint source management program under
section 319 of the Act; for the development and implementation
of a conservation and management plan under the National
Estuary Program; for the implementation of lake protection
programs and projects under section 314 of the Act; for the
repair and replacement of decentralized wastewater treatment
systems that treat domestic sewage; for measures to manage,
reduce, treat, or reuse municipal stormwater, agricultural
stormwater, and return flows from irrigated agriculture; for
water conservation projects; and for the development and
implementation of watershed pilot projects under section 122 of
the Act; for alternative water source projects to meet critical
water supply needs; for control combined sewer overflows and
sanitary sewer overflows; and for projects to remediate
contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes areas of concern; (2)
reauthorizing funding, at increased levels, for EPA research
grants and state management assistance; and (3) providing a
uniform, national standard for monitoring, reporting, and
public notification of municipal combined sewer overflows and
sanitary sewer overflows.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R.
1262 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 9, 2009.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1262, the Water
Quality Investment Act of 2009.
lf you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Susanne S.
Mehlman and Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1262--Water Quality Investment Act of 2009
Summary: CB0 estimates that implementing this legislation
would cost about $10.6 billion over the next five years and
$17.7 billion over the next 10 years, assuming the
appropriation of the necessary amounts, for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to provide various types of grants to
states and nonprofit organizations to support water quality
projects and programs.
In addition to the effects on discretionary spending,
enacting H.R. 1262 would affect both federal revenues and
offsetting receipts. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)
estimates that enacting H.R. 1262 would reduce revenues by $85
million over the 2010-2014 period and by $700 million over the
2010-2019 period. CBO estimates that enacting this legislation
also would increase tonnage charges on vessels entering the
United States, effective for fiscal years 2010 through 2019.
Those charges would increase offsetting receipts, which are
credits against direct spending, by $700 million over that
period.
The legislation's effects on direct spending and revenues
over the 2009-2013 and 2009-2018 periods arc relevant for
enforcing pay-as-you-go rules under the current budget
resolution. CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would
reduce revenues by about $36 million over that five-year period
and by $547 million over the 2009-2018 period. Enacting the
bill also would reduce direct spending by about $266 million
over the 2009-2013 period and about $625 million over the 2009-
2018 period. Together, those changes would yield net pay-as-
you-go savings of $230 million over five years and about $78
million over 10 years.
H.R. 1262 contains several intergovernmental mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), including
monitoring, reporting, and public notification requirements for
publicly owned treatment systems. The bill also includes an
additional reporting requirement for states. CBO estimates that
the annual cost of complying with those mandates would likely
exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($69 million for
intergovernmental mandates in 2009, adjusted annually for
inflation).
H.R. 1262 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined
in UMRA, on operators of vessels entering the United States by
increasing vessel tonnage duties over the 2010-2019 period. CBO
estimates that the direct costs of complying with those
mandates would fall below the annual threshold established in
UMRA for private-sector mandates ($139 million in 2009,
adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1262 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 1262
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2009-2014 2009-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN REVENUE \1\
Estimated Revenues \2\................ 0 * -2 -9 -25 -49 -77 -107 -131 -147 -153 -85 -700
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Vessel Tonnage Charges \3\
Estimated Budget Authority........ 0 -65 -66 -67 -68 -69 -70 -72 -73 -75 -75 -335 -700
Estimated Outlays................. 0 -65 -66 -67 -68 -69 -70 -72 -73 -75 -75 -335 -700
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level................... 0 3,275 3,625 3,775 3,925 4,125 0 0 0 0 0 18,725 18,725
Estimated Outlays..................... 0 625 1,369 2,265 2,938 3,370 2,915 2,125 1,201 591 297 10,567 17,696
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
\2\ Negative numbers reflect a reduction in receipts.
\3\ Negative numbers reflect an increase in offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending).
NOTE: * revenue loss of less than $500,000.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
1262 will be enacted in fiscal year 2009, that the full amounts
authorized will be appropriated, and that outlays will follow
the historical patterns of similar EPA programs. Components of
the estimated costs are described below.
Revenues
H.R. 1262 would increase the funds available under the
clean water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, which would
result in some states leveraging SRF grants by issuing
additional tax-exempt bonds. The JCT estimates that those
additional bonds would result in reductions in revenue totaling
$700 million over the next 10 years (see Table 1).
Direct spending
This legislation would increase, through fiscal year 2019,
per-ton duties imposed on vessels arriving at U.S. ports from
foreign ports. For vessels arriving from such ports in the
western hemisphere, the rate would rise to 9 cents per ton
(with a maximum of 45 cents per ton per year); for vessels
arriving from other foreign ports, the rate would rise to 27
cents (with a maximum of $1.35 per year). The Department of
Homeland Security currently collects 2 cents per ton (with a
maximum of 10 cents per ton per year) on vessels arriving from
western hemisphere ports and 6 cents (with a maximum of 30
cents per ton per year) on those arriving from other foreign
ports.
CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would increase
offsetting receipts from tonnage duties by $65 million to $75
million a year through 2019. Total estimated collections over
the 2010-2019 period would be $700 million (see Table 1). This
estimate is based on the additional receipts from tonnage
duties collected before fiscal year 2002 (when those rates were
temporarily increased to the levels specified in H.R. 1262),
including an adjustment for changes in shipping traffic
experienced since that time.
Spending subject to appropriation
This legislation would authorize appropriations totaling
about $18.7 billion over the next five years for EPA's water
infrastructure and grant programs. Amounts authorized to be
appropriated for individual programs are shown in Table 2.
H.R. 1262 would authorize the appropriation of $13.8
billion over the 2010-2014 period for EPA to provide
capitalization grants for the clean water (SRF) program. States
would use such grants along with their own funds to make low-
interest loans to communities and grants to Indian tribes to
construct wastewater treatment facilities and to fund other
related projects. This bill would make several amendments to
this grant program, including allowing states to extend the
repayment terms for SRF loans and expanding the types of
projects eligible for assistance.
TABLE 2.--AMOUNTS AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED FOR EPA PROGRAMS UNDER H.R. 1262, THE WATER QUALITY INVESTMENT
ACT OF 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Water SRF Grants.................................. 2,400 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 13,800
Sewer Overflow Grants................................... 250 300 350 400 500 1,800
State Management Assistance............................. 300 300 300 300 300 1,500
Great Lakes Remediation................................. 150 150 150 150 150 750
Technical Assistance for Rural/Small Treatment Works.... 100 100 100 100 100 500
Alternative Water Source Projects....................... 50 50 50 50 50 250
Watershed Pilot Projects................................ 20 20 20 20 20 100
Great Lakes Research and Development.................... 5 5 5 5 5 25
Total Authorization Level......................... 3,275 3,625 3,775 3,925 4,125 18,725
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; SRF = state revolving fund.
This legislation also would authorize the appropriation of
$1.8 billion over the 2010-2014 period for EPA to make grants
to states to address sewage overflows (that is, the discharge
of untreated wastewater into waterways). In addition, H.R. 1262
would authorize the appropriation of $1.5 billion over the
2010-2014 period for EPA to make grants to states to support
various activities associated with implementing state clean
water programs; those funds would be available to pay the
salaries of personnel working on water quality issues,
establish regulations, and enforce clean water laws.
All of the remaining authorizations in the bill would total
about $1.6 billion over the next five years. That funding would
be used for various other purposes, including support for
projects aimed at cleaning up certain areas of the Great Lakes
region where contamination has settled into sediments at the
bottom of the lakes, and grants to nonprofit organizations to
provide technical assistance, such as training communities in
methods for treating water.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 1262 would require treatment plants to comply with a
number of new requirements, Those requirements are not
conditions of federal assistance, and consequently, they would
be intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. Specifically,
the bill would require:
Institute and utilize a monitoring program
for sewer overflows, including combined sewer overflows
and sanitary sewer overflows;
Notify the public of a sewer overflow within
24 hours;
Notify public health authorities and other
affected entities, such as public water systems, if
there is an imminent and substantial risk to human
health due to a sewer overflow;
Provide a report of an overflow within 24
hours to the state or to the Administrator of EPA;
Report each sewer overflow on its monthly
discharge monitoring report to EPA or the treatment
plant's state. This report must include the magnitude,
cause, and mitigation efforts for the specific
overflows; and
Submit an annual report to EPA or the state
on the number of overflows in a calendar year,
including the details of magnitude, duration, location,
potentially affected receiving waters, and mitigation
efforts. If a state receives a report under this
requirement, that state must submit to EPA a summary of
the report.
Without knowing the nature of the regulations that EPA
would issue as a result of this bill, CBO cannot make a precise
estimate of the costs of complying with the mandates. Based on
information from affected entities, however, we estimate that
such costs would likely exceed the threshold established in
UMRA. The bill's new requirements would involve additional
personnel costs and could necessitate new infrastructure and
engineering expertise. According to EPA and the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies, over 16,000 treatment
plants operate in the United States, and each of those entities
could be affected by the permitting requirements in H.R. 1262.
Infrastructure improvements, if required by the regulations,
could be particularly expensive. Given the large number of
affected entities, even a small increase in additional costs
(less than $4,500 per entity annually) would result in costs
that exceed the threshold for intergovernmental mandates in at
least one of the next five years ($69 million in 2009, adjusted
annually for inflation).
Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 1262 would
impose private-sector mandates on operators of vessels entering
the United States by increasing vessel tonnage duties over the
2010-2019 period. The cost of complying with those mandates
would be the incremental amounts paid to the federal government
as a result of the higher rates. CBO estimates that the
incremental cost for vessel operators would amount to about $67
million per year during the first live years the mandate is in
effect. Consequently, the direct cost of the mandates would
fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA for
private-sector mandates ($139 million in 2009, adjusted
annually for inflation).
Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Susanne S. Mehlman
and Deborah Reis; Federal Revenues: Thomas Holtmann, Joint
Committee On Taxation; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal
Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy
Petz.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With House Rule XXI
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act
of 2009, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character shall include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 1262 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26.005
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) 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
* * * * * * *
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
Sec. 104. (a) * * *
(b) In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this
section the Administrator is authorized to--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with
other Federal departments and agencies, and with other
public or private agencies, institutions, and
organizations having related responsibilities, basic
data on chemical, physical, and biological effects of
varying water quality and other information pertaining
to pollution and the prevention, reduction, and
elimination thereof; [and]
(7) develop effective and practical processes,
methods, and prototype devices for the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of pollution[.]; and
(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations--
(A) to provide technical assistance to rural
and small municipalities for the purpose of
assisting, in consultation with the State in
which the assistance is provided, such
municipalities in the planning, developing, and
acquisition of financing for eligible projects
described in section 603(c);
(B) to provide technical assistance and
training for rural and small publicly owned
treatment works and decentralized wastewater
treatment systems to enable such treatment
works and systems to protect water quality and
achieve and maintain compliance with the
requirements of this Act; and
(C) to disseminate information to rural and
small municipalities and municipalities that
meet the affordability criteria established
under section 603(i)(2) by the State in which
the municipality is located with respect to
planning, design, construction, and operation
of publicly owned treatment works and
decentralized wastewater treatment systems.
* * * * * * *
(q)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Small Flows Clearinghouse.--Notwithstanding section
205(d) of this Act, from amounts that are set aside for a
fiscal year under section 205(i) of this Act and are not
obligated by the end of the 24-month period of availability for
such amounts under section 205(d), the Administrator shall make
available [$1,000,000] $3,000,000 or such unobligated amount,
whichever is less, to support a national clearinghouse within
the Environmental Protection Agency to collect and disseminate
information on small flows of sewage and innovative or
alternative wastewater treatment processes and techniques,
consistent with paragraph (3). This paragraph shall apply with
respect to amounts set aside under section 205(i) for which the
24-month period of availability referred to in the preceding
sentence ends on or after September 30, [1986] 2011.
* * * * * * *
(u) There is authorized to be appropriated (1) not to exceed
$100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1973, the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1975, not to exceed $14,039,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, not to exceed
$20,697,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, not
to exceed $22,770,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1982, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983
through 1985, and not to exceed $22,770,000 per fiscal year for
each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, for carrying out
the provisions of this section, other than subsections (g)(1)
and (2), (p), (r), and (t), except that such authorizations are
not for any research, development, or demonstration activity
pursuant to such provisions; (2) not to exceed $7,500,000 for
fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975, $2,000,000 for fiscal year
1977, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1978, $3,000,000 for fiscal
year 1979, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1980, $3,000,000 for
fiscal year 1981, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1982, such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and
$3,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1986
through 1990, for carrying out the provisions of subsection
(g)(1); (3) not to exceed $2,500,000 for fiscal years 1973,
1974, and 1975, $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1977, $1,500,000 for
fiscal year 1978, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1979, $1,500,000
for fiscal year 1980, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1981,
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1982, such sums as may be necessary
for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $1,500,000 per fiscal
year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, for
carrying out the provisions of subsection (g)(2); (4) not to
exceed $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending June 30,
1973, June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the
provisions of subsection (p); (5) not to exceed $15,000,000 per
fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June 30,
1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the provisions of
subsection (r); [and (6)] (6) not to exceed $10,000,000 per
fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June 30,
1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the provisions of
subsection (t); and (7) not to exceed $100,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for carrying out subsections
(b)(3), (b)(8), and (g), except that not less than 20 percent
of the amounts appropriated pursuant to this paragraph in a
fiscal year shall be used for carrying out subsection (b)(8).
* * * * * * *
GRANTS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
Sec. 106. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
the following sums, to remain available until expended, to
carry out the purposes of this section--
(1) $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973; [and]
(2) $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1974, and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975,
$100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years 1977,
1978, 1979, and 1980, $75,000,000 per fiscal year for
the fiscal years 1981 and 1982, such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and
$75,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal
years 1986 through 1990[;]; and
(3) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 1991 through 2009, and $300,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2010 through 2014;
* * * * * * *
SEC. 118. GREAT LAKES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Great Lakes Management.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(12) Remediation of sediment contamination in areas
of concern.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(H) Authorization of appropriations.--
[(i) In general.--In addition to
other amounts authorized under this
section, there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this
paragraph $50,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2010.]
(i) In general.--In addition to other
amounts authorized under this section,
there is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this paragraph--
(I) $50,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years 2004 through
2009; and
(II) $150,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years 2010 through
2014.
* * * * * * *
(13) Public information program.--
(A) * * *
(B) Authorization of appropriations.--There
is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this paragraph $1,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2004 through [2010] 2014.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 122. [WET WEATHER] WATERSHED PILOT PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Administrator, in coordination with the
States, may provide technical assistance and grants for
treatment works to carry out pilot projects relating to the
following areas of [wet weather discharge] control:
(1) * * *
(2) Stormwater best management practices.--The
control of pollutants from municipal separate storm
sewer systems for the purpose of demonstrating and
determining controls that are cost-effective and that
use innovative technologies [in reducing such
pollutants from stormwater discharges] to manage,
reduce, treat, or reuse municipal stormwater, including
low-impact development technologies.
(3) Watershed partnerships.--Efforts of
municipalities and property owners to demonstrate
cooperative ways to address nonpoint sources of
pollution to reduce adverse impacts on water quality.
(4) Integrated water resource plan.--The development
of an integrated water resource plan for the
coordinated management and protection of surface water,
ground water, and stormwater resources on a watershed
or subwatershed basis to meet the objectives, goals,
and policies of this Act.
* * * * * * *
(c) Funding.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and
$20,000,000 [for fiscal year 2004] for each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2014. Such funds shall remain
available until expended.
* * * * * * *
(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than [5 years after the
date of enactment of this section,] October 1, 2011, the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on the
results of the pilot projects conducted under this section and
their possible application nationwide.
TITLE II--GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT WORKS
* * * * * * *
[SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
[Sec. 211. (a) No]
SEC. 211. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--No grant shall be made for a sewage
collection system under this title unless such grant (1) is for
replacement or major rehabilitation of an existing collection
system and is necessary to the total integrity and performance
of the waste treatment works serving such community, or (2) is
for a new collection system in an existing community with
sufficient existing or planned capacity adequately to treat
such collected sewage and is consistent with section 201 of
this Act.
(b) Population Density.--If the Administrator uses population
density as a test for determining the eligibility of a
collector sewer for assistance it shall be only for the purpose
of evaluating alternatives and determining the needs for such
system in relation to ground or surface water quality impact.
[(c) No grant shall be made under this title from funds
authorized for any fiscal year during the period beginning
October 1, 1977, and ending September 30, 1990, for treatment
works for control of pollutant discharges from separate storm
sewer systems.]
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) Replacement and major rehabilitation.--
Notwithstanding the requirement of subsection (a)(1)
concerning the existence of a collection system as a
condition of eligibility, a project for replacement or
major rehabilitation of a collection system existing on
January 1, 2007, shall be eligible for a grant under
this title if the project otherwise meets the
requirements of subsection (a)(1) and meets the
requirement of paragraph (3).
(2) New systems.--Notwithstanding the requirement of
subsection (a)(2) concerning the existence of a
community as a condition of eligibility, a project for
a new collection system to serve a community existing
on January 1, 2007, shall be eligible for a grant under
this title if the project otherwise meets the
requirements of subsection (a)(2) and meets the
requirement of paragraph (3).
(3) Requirement.--A project meets the requirement of
this paragraph if the purpose of the project is to
accomplish the objectives, goals, and policies of this
Act by addressing an adverse environmental condition
existing on the date of enactment of this paragraph.
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 212. As used in this title--
(1) * * *
(2)(A) The term ``treatment works'' means any devices
and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling,
and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature to implement section 201 of
this act, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the
most economical cost over the estimated life of the
works, including intercepting sewers, outfall sewers,
sewage collection systems, pumping, power, and other
equipment, and their appurtenances; extensions,
improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof; elements essential to provide a reliable
recycled supply such as standby treatment units and
clear well facilities; and [any works, including site]
acquisition of the land that will be an integral part
of the treatment process (including land use for the
storage of treated wastewater in land treatment systems
prior to land application) or [is used for ultimate]
will be used for ultimate disposal of residues
resulting from such treatment and acquisition of other
lands, and interests in lands, which are necessary for
construction.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 220. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Selection of Projects.--
(1) * * *
(2) Additional consideration.--In making grants under
this section, the Administrator shall consider whether
the project is located within the boundaries of a State
or area referred to in section 1 of the Reclamation Act
of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat . 385), and within the
geographic scope of the reclamation and reuse program
conducted under the Reclamation Projects Authorization
and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) or
whether the project is located in an area which is
served by a public water system serving 10,000
individuals or fewer.
* * * * * * *
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section a total of
[$75,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 through 2004] $50,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
SEC. 221. SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) Administrative Reporting Requirements.--If a project
receives grant assistance under subsection (a) and loan
assistance from a State water pollution control revolving fund
and the loan assistance is for 15 percent or more of the cost
of the project, the project may be administered in accordance
with State water pollution control revolving fund
administrative reporting requirements for the purposes of
streamlining such requirements.]
(e) Administrative Requirements.--A project that receives
assistance under this section shall be carried out subject to
the same requirements as a project that receives assistance
from a State water pollution control revolving fund under title
VI, except to the extent that the Governor of the State in
which the project is located determines that a requirement of
title VI is inconsistent with the purposes of this section.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out [this section $750,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003.] this section $250,000,000
for fiscal year 2010, $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011,
$350,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, $400,000,000 for fiscal year
2013, and $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
[(g) Allocation of Funds.--
[(1) Fiscal year 2002.--Subject to subsection (h),
the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to
carry out this section for fiscal year 2002 for making
grants to municipalities and municipal entities under
subsection (a)(2), in accordance with the criteria set
forth in subsection (b).
[(2) Fiscal year 2003.--Subject to subsection (h),
the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to
carry out this section for fiscal year 2003 as follows:
[(A) Not to exceed $250,000,000 for making
grants to municipalities and municipal entities
under subsection (a)(2), in accordance with the
criteria set forth in subsection (b).
[(B) All remaining amounts for making grants
to States under subsection (a)(1), in
accordance with a formula to be established by
the Administrator, after providing notice and
an opportunity for public comment, that
allocates to each State a proportional share of
such amounts based on the total needs of the
State for municipal combined sewer overflow
controls and sanitary sewer overflow controls
identified in the most recent survey conducted
pursuant to section 516(b)(1).]
(g) Allocation of Funds.--
(1) Fiscal year 2010.--Subject to subsection (h), the
Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to
carry out this section for fiscal year 2010 for making
grants to municipalities and municipal entities under
subsection (a)(2) in accordance with the criteria set
forth in subsection (b).
(2) Fiscal year 2011 and thereafter.--Subject to
subsection (h), the Administrator shall use the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal year
2011 and each fiscal year thereafter for making grants
to States under subsection (a)(1) in accordance with a
formula to be established by the Administrator, after
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment,
that allocates to each State a proportional share of
such amounts based on the total needs of the State for
municipal combined sewer overflow controls and sanitary
sewer overflow controls identified in the most recent
survey conducted pursuant to section 516.
* * * * * * *
(i) Reports.--Not later than December 31, [2003] 2012, and
periodically thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to
Congress a report containing recommended funding levels for
grants under this section. The recommended funding levels shall
be sufficient to ensure the continued expeditious
implementation of municipal combined sewer overflow and
sanitary sewer overflow controls nationwide.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Sec. 402. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(s) Sewer Overflow Monitoring, Reporting, and
Notifications.--
(1) General requirements.--After the last day of the
180-day period beginning on the date on which
regulations are issued under paragraph (4), a permit
issued, renewed, or modified under this section by the
Administrator or the State, as the case may be, for a
publicly owned treatment works shall require, at a
minimum, beginning on the date of the issuance,
modification, or renewal, that the owner or operator of
the treatment works--
(A) institute and utilize a feasible
methodology, technology, or management program
for monitoring sewer overflows to alert the
owner or operator to the occurrence of a sewer
overflow in a timely manner;
(B) in the case of a sewer overflow that has
the potential to affect human health, notify
the public of the overflow as soon as
practicable but not later than 24 hours after
the time the owner or operator knows of the
overflow;
(C) in the case of a sewer overflow that may
imminently and substantially endanger human
health, notify public health authorities and
other affected entities, such as public water
systems, of the overflow immediately after the
owner or operator knows of the overflow;
(D) report each sewer overflow on its
discharge monitoring report to the
Administrator or the State, as the case may be,
by describing--
(i) the magnitude, duration, and
suspected cause of the overflow;
(ii) the steps taken or planned to
reduce, eliminate, or prevent
recurrence of the overflow; and
(iii) the steps taken or planned to
mitigate the impact of the overflow;
and
(E) annually report to the Administrator or
the State, as the case may be, the total number
of sewer overflows in a calendar year,
including--
(i) the details of how much
wastewater was released per incident;
(ii) the duration of each sewer
overflow;
(iii) the location of the overflow
and any potentially affected receiving
waters;
(iv) the responses taken to clean up
the overflow; and
(v) the actions taken to mitigate
impacts and avoid further sewer
overflows at the site.
(2) Exceptions.--
(A) Notification requirements.--The
notification requirements of paragraphs (1)(B)
and (1)(C) shall not apply to a sewer overflow
that is a wastewater backup into a single-
family residence.
(B) Reporting requirements.--The reporting
requirements of paragraphs (1)(D) and (1)(E)
shall not apply to a sewer overflow that is a
release of wastewater that occurs in the course
of maintenance of the treatment works, is
managed consistently with the treatment works'
best management practices, and is intended to
prevent sewer overflows.
(3) Report to epa.--Each State shall provide to the
Administrator annually a summary of sewer overflows
that occurred in the State.
(4) Rulemaking by epa.--Not later than one year after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the
Administrator, after providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment, shall issue regulations
to implement this subsection, including regulations
to--
(A) establish a set of criteria to guide the
owner or operator of a publicly owned treatment
works in--
(i) assessing whether a sewer
overflow has the potential to affect
human health or may imminently and
substantially endanger human health;
and
(ii) developing communication
measures that are sufficient to give
notice under paragraphs (1)(B) and
(1)(C); and
(B) define the terms ``feasible'' and
``timely'' as such terms apply to paragraph
(1)(A), including site specific conditions.
(5) Approval of state notification programs.--
(A) Requests for approval.--
(i) In general.--After the date of
issuance of regulations under paragraph
(4), a State may submit to the
Administrator evidence that the State
has in place a legally enforceable
notification program that is
substantially equivalent to or exceeds
the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B)
and (1)(C).
(ii) Program review and
authorization.--If the evidence
submitted by a State under clause (i)
shows the notification program of the
State to be substantially equivalent to
or exceeds the requirements of
paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C), the
Administrator shall authorize the State
to carry out such program instead of
the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B)
and (1)(C).
(iii) Factors for determining
substantial equivalency.--In carrying
out a review of a State notification
program under clause (ii), the
Administrator shall take into account
the scope of sewer overflows for which
notification is required, the length of
time during which notification must be
made, the scope of persons who must be
notified of sewer overflows, the scope
of enforcement activities ensuring that
notifications of sewer overflows are
made, and such other factors as the
Administrator considers appropriate.
(B) Review period.--If a State submits
evidence with respect to a notification program
under subparagraph (A)(i) on or before the last
day of the 30-day period beginning on the date
of issuance of regulations under paragraph (4),
the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and
(1)(C) shall not begin to apply to a publicly
owned treatment works located in the State
until the date on which the Administrator
completes a review of the notification program
under subparagraph (A)(ii).
(C) Withdrawal of authorization.--If the
Administrator, after conducting a public
hearing, determines that a State is not
administering and enforcing a State
notification program authorized under
subparagraph (A)(ii) in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph, the
Administrator shall so notify the State and, if
appropriate corrective action is not taken
within a reasonable time, not to exceed 90
days, the Administrator shall withdraw
authorization of such program and enforce the
requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C)
with respect to the State.
(6) Special rules concerning application of
notification requirements.--After the last day of the
30-day period beginning on the date of issuance of
regulations under paragraph (4), the requirements of
paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall--
(A) apply to the owner or operator of a
publicly owned treatment works and be subject
to enforcement under section 309, and
(B) supersede any notification requirements
contained in a permit issued under this section
for the treatment works to the extent that the
notification requirements are less stringent
than the notification requirements of
paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C),
until such date as a permit is issued, renewed, or
modified under this section for the treatment works in
accordance with paragraph (1).
(7) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
(A) Sanitary sewer overflow.--The term
``sanitary sewer overflow'' means an overflow,
spill, release, or diversion of wastewater from
a sanitary sewer system. Such term does not
include municipal combined sewer overflows or
other discharges from the combined portion of a
municipal combined storm and sanitary sewer
system and does not include wastewater backups
into buildings caused by a blockage or other
malfunction of a building lateral that is
privately owned. Such term includes overflows
or releases of wastewater that reach waters of
the United States, overflows or releases of
wastewater in the United States that do not
reach waters of the United States, and
wastewater backups into buildings that are
caused by blockages or flow conditions in a
sanitary sewer other than a building lateral.
(B) Sewer overflow.--The term ``sewer
overflow'' means a sanitary sewer overflow or a
municipal combined sewer overflow.
(C) Single-family residence.--The term
``single-family residence'' means an individual
dwelling unit, including an apartment,
condominium, house, or dormitory. Such term
does not include the common areas of a multi-
dwelling structure.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Sec. 502. Except as otherwise specifically provided, when
used in this Act:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(26) Treatment works.--The term ``treatment works''
has the meaning given that term in section 212.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 518. INDIAN TRIBES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Reservation of Funds.--[The Administrator]
(1) Fiscal years 1987-2008.--The Administrator shall
reserve each fiscal year beginning after September 30,
1986, and ending before October 1, 2008, before
allotments to the States under section 205(e), one-half
of one percent of the sums appropriated under section
207. [Sums reserved under this subsection shall be
available only for grants for the develoment of waste
treatment management plans and for the construction of
sewage treatment works to serve Indian tribes, as
defined in subsection (h) and former Indian
reservations in Oklahoma (as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior) and Alaska Native Villages
as defined in Public Law 92-203.]
(2) Fiscal year 2009 and thereafter.--For fiscal year
2009 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Administrator
shall reserve, before allotments to the States under
section 604(a), not less than 0.5 percent and not more
than 1.5 percent of the funds made available to carry
out title VI.
(3) Use of funds.--Funds reserved under this
subsection shall be available only for grants for
projects and activities eligible for assistance under
section 603(c) to serve--
(A) Indian tribes (as defined in section
518(h));
(B) former Indian reservations in Oklahoma
(as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior); and
(C) Native villages (as defined in section 3
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1602)).
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS
SEC. 601. GRANTS TO STATES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF REVOLVING FUNDS.
(a) General Authority.--Subject to the provisions of this
title, the Administrator shall make capitalization grants to
each State for the purpose of establishing a water pollution
control revolving fund [for providing assistance (1) for
construction of treatment works (as defined in section 212 of
this Act) which are publicly owned, (2) for implementing a
management program under section 319, and (3) for developing
and implementing a conservation and management plan under
section 320.] to accomplish the objectives, goals, and policies
of this Act by providing assistance for projects and activities
identified in section 603(c).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Specific Requirements.--The Administrator shall enter
into an agreement under this section with a State only after
the State has established to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) treatment works eligible under section 603(c)(1)
of this Act which will be constructed in whole or in
part [before fiscal year 1995] with [funds directly
made available by capitalization grants under this
title and section 205(m) of this Act] assistance made
available by a State water pollution control revolving
fund as authorized under this title, or with assistance
made available under section 205(m), or both, will meet
the requirements of, or otherwise be treated (as
determined by the Governor of the State) under sections
[201(b), 201(g)(1), 201(g)(2), 201(g)(3), 201(g)(5),
201(g)(6), 201(n)(1), 201(o), 204(a)(1), 204(a)(2),
204(b)(1), 204(d)(2), 211, 218, 511(c)(1), and 513] 211
and 511(c)(1) of this Act in the same manner as
treatment works constructed with assistance under title
II of this Act;
* * * * * * *
(9) the State will require as a condition of making a
loan or providing other assistance, as described in
section 603(d) of this Act, from the fund that the
recipient of such assistance will maintain project
accounts in accordance with generally accepted
government accounting [standards] standards, including
standards relating to the reporting of infrastructure
assets; [and]
(10) the State will make annual reports to the
Administrator on the actual use of funds in accordance
with section 606(d) of this Act[.];
(11) the State will establish, maintain, invest, and
credit the fund with repayments, such that the fund
balance will be available in perpetuity for providing
financial assistance in accordance with this title;
(12) any fees charged by the State to recipients of
assistance that are considered program income will be
used for the purpose of financing the cost of
administering the fund or financing projects or
activities eligible for assistance from the fund;
(13) beginning in fiscal year 2011, the State will
include as a condition of providing assistance to a
municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or State
agency that the recipient of such assistance certify,
in a manner determined by the Governor of the State,
that the recipient--
(A) has studied and evaluated the cost and
effectiveness of the processes, materials,
techniques, and technologies for carrying out
the proposed project or activity for which
assistance is sought under this title, and has
selected, to the extent practicable, a project
or activity that maximizes the potential for
efficient water use, reuse, and conservation,
and energy conservation, taking into account
the cost of constructing the project or
activity, the cost of operating and maintaining
the project or activity over its life, and the
cost of replacing the project or activity; and
(B) has considered, to the maximum extent
practicable and as determined appropriate by
the recipient, the costs and effectiveness of
other design, management, and financing
approaches for carrying out a project or
activity for which assistance is sought under
this title, taking into account the cost of
constructing the project or activity, the cost
of operating and maintaining the project or
activity over its life, and the cost of
replacing the project or activity;
(14) the State will use at least 10 percent of the
amount of each capitalization grant received by the
State under this title after September 30, 2010, to
provide assistance to municipalities of fewer than
10,000 individuals that meet the affordability criteria
established by the State under section 603(i)(2) for
activities included on the State's priority list
established under section 603(g), to the extent that
there are sufficient applications for such assistance;
(15) a contract to be carried out using funds
directly made available by a capitalization grant under
this title for program management, construction
management, feasibility studies, preliminary
engineering, design, engineering, surveying, mapping,
or architectural related services shall be negotiated
in the same manner as a contract for architectural and
engineering services is negotiated under chapter 11 of
title 40, United States Code, or an equivalent State
qualifications-based requirement (as determined by the
Governor of the State); and
(16) the requirements of section 513 will apply to
the construction of treatment works carried out in
whole or in part with assistance made available by a
State water pollution control revolving fund as
authorized under this title, or with assistance made
available under section 205(m), or both, in the same
manner as treatment works for which grants are made
under this Act.
SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Projects Eligible for Assistance.--The amounts of funds
available to each State water pollution control revolving fund
shall be used only for providing financial assistance (1) to
any municipality, intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency
for construction of publicly owned treatment works (as defined
in section 212 of this Act), (2) for the implementation of a
management program established under section 319 of this Act,
and (3) for development and implementation of a conservation
and management plan under section 320 of this Act. The fund
shall be established, maintained, and credited with repayments,
and the fund balance shall be available in perpetuity for
providing such financial assistance.]
(c) Projects and Activities Eligible for Assistance.--The
amounts of funds available to each State water pollution
control revolving fund shall be used only for providing
financial assistance--
(1) to any municipality or intermunicipal,
interstate, or State agency for construction of
publicly owned treatment works;
(2) for the implementation of a management program
established under section 319;
(3) for development and implementation of a
conservation and management plan under section 320;
(4) for the implementation of lake protection
programs and projects under section 314;
(5) for repair or replacement of decentralized
wastewater treatment systems that treat domestic
sewage;
(6) for measures to manage, reduce, treat, or reuse
municipal stormwater, agricultural stormwater, and
return flows from irrigated agriculture;
(7) to any municipality or intermunicipal,
interstate, or State agency for measures to reduce the
demand for publicly owned treatment works capacity
through water conservation, efficiency, or reuse; and
(8) for the development and implementation of
watershed projects meeting the criteria set forth in
section 122.
(d) Types of Assistance.--Except as otherwise limited by
State law, a water pollution control revolving fund of a State
under this section may be used only--
(1) to make loans, on the condition that--
(A) such loans are made at or below market
interest rates, including interest free loans,
at terms not to exceed [20 years] the lesser of
30 years or the design life of the project to
be financed with the proceeds of the loan;
(B) annual principal and interest payments
will commence not later than 1 year after
completion of any project and all loans will be
fully amortized [not later than 20 years after
project completion] upon the expiration of the
term of the loan;
(C) the recipient of a loan will establish a
dedicated source of revenue for repayment of
loans; [and]
(D) the fund will be credited with all
payments of principal and interest on all
loans; and
(E) for any portion of a treatment works
proposed for repair, replacement, or expansion,
and eligible for assistance under section
603(c)(1), the recipient of a loan will develop
and implement a fiscal sustainability plan that
includes--
(i) an inventory of critical assets
that are a part of that portion of the
treatment works;
(ii) an evaluation of the condition
and performance of inventoried assets
or asset groupings; and
(iii) a plan for maintaining,
repairing, and, as necessary, replacing
that portion of the treatment works and
a plan for funding such activities;
* * * * * * *
(6) to earn interest on fund accounts; [and]
(7) for the reasonable costs of administering the
fund and conducting activities under this title, except
that such amounts shall not exceed 4 percent of all
grant awards to such fund under this title[.], $400,000
per year, or 1/5 percent per year of the current
valuation of the fund, whichever amount is greatest,
plus the amount of any fees collected by the State for
such purpose regardless of the source;
(8) to provide grants to owners and operators of
treatment works that serve a population of 10,000 or
fewer for obtaining technical and planning assistance
and assistance in financial management, user fee
analysis, budgeting, capital improvement planning,
facility operation and maintenance, equipment
replacement, repair schedules, and other activities to
improve wastewater treatment plant management and
operations, except that the total amount provided by
the State in grants under this paragraph for a fiscal
year may not exceed one percent of the total amount of
assistance provided by the State from the fund in the
preceding fiscal year, or 2 percent of the total amount
received by the State in capitalization grants under
this title in the preceding fiscal year, whichever
amount is greatest; and
(9) to provide grants to owners and operators of
treatment works for conducting an assessment of the
energy and water consumption of the treatment works,
and evaluating potential opportunities for energy and
water conservation through facility operation and
maintenance, equipment replacement, and projects or
activities that promote the efficient use of energy and
water by the treatment works, except that the total
amount provided by the State in grants under this
paragraph for a fiscal year may not exceed one percent
of the total amount of assistance provided by the State
from the fund in the preceding fiscal year, or 2
percent of the total amount received by the State in
capitalization grants under this title in the preceding
fiscal year, whichever amount is greatest.
* * * * * * *
[(g) Priority List Requirement.--The State may provide
financial assistance from its water pollution control revolving
fund only with respect to a project for construction of a
treatment works described in subsection (c)(1) if such project
is on the State's priority list under section 216 of this Act.
Such assistance may be provided regardless of the rank of such
project on such list.]
(g) Priority List.--
(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal
year thereafter, a State shall establish or update a
list of projects and activities for which assistance is
sought from the State's water pollution control
revolving fund. Such projects and activities shall be
listed in priority order based on the methodology
established under paragraph (2). The State may provide
financial assistance from the State's water pollution
control revolving fund only with respect to a project
or activity included on such list. In the case of
projects and activities eligible for assistance under
section 603(c)(2), the State may include a category or
subcategory of nonpoint sources of pollution on such
list in lieu of a specific project or activity.
(2) Methodology.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this paragraph, and
after providing notice and opportunity for
public comment, each State (acting through the
State's water quality management agency and
other appropriate agencies of the State) shall
establish a methodology for developing a
priority list under paragraph (1).
(B) Priority for projects and activities that
achieve greatest water quality improvement.--In
developing the methodology, the State shall
seek to achieve the greatest degree of water
quality improvement, taking into consideration
the requirements of section 602(b)(5) and
section 603(i)(3), whether such water quality
improvements would be realized without
assistance under this title, and whether the
proposed projects and activities would address
water quality impairments associated with
existing treatment works.
(C) Considerations in selecting projects and
activities.--In determining which projects and
activities will achieve the greatest degree of
water quality improvement, the State shall
consider--
(i) information developed by the
State under sections 303(d) and 305(b);
(ii) the State's continuing planning
process developed under section 303(e);
(iii) the State's management program
developed under section 319; and
(iv) conservation and management
plans developed under section 320.
(D) Nonpoint sources.--For categories or
subcategories of nonpoint sources of pollution
that a State may include on its priority list
under paragraph (1), the State shall consider
the cumulative water quality improvements
associated with projects or activities in such
categories or subcategories.
(E) Existing methodologies.--If a State has
previously developed, after providing notice
and an opportunity for public comment, a
methodology that meets the requirements of this
paragraph, the State may use the methodology
for the purposes of this subsection.
* * * * * * *
(i) Additional Subsidization.--
(1) In general.--In any case in which a State
provides assistance to a municipality or
intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency under
subsection (d), the State may provide additional
subsidization, including forgiveness of principal and
negative interest loans--
(A) to benefit a municipality that--
(i) meets the State's affordability
criteria established under paragraph
(2); or
(ii) does not meet the State's
affordability criteria if the
recipient--
(I) seeks additional
subsidization to benefit
individual ratepayers in the
residential user rate class;
(II) demonstrates to the
State that such ratepayers will
experience a significant
hardship from the increase in
rates necessary to finance the
project or activity for which
assistance is sought; and
(III) ensures, as part of an
assistance agreement between
the State and the recipient,
that the additional
subsidization provided under
this paragraph is directed
through a user charge rate
system (or other appropriate
method) to such ratepayers; or
(B) to implement a process, material,
technique, or technology to address water-
efficiency goals, address energy-efficiency
goals, mitigate stormwater runoff, or encourage
environmentally sensitive project planning,
design, and construction.
(2) Affordability criteria.--
(A) Establishment.--On or before September
30, 2010, and after providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment, a State shall
establish affordability criteria to assist in
identifying municipalities that would
experience a significant hardship raising the
revenue necessary to finance a project or
activity eligible for assistance under section
603(c)(1) if additional subsidization is not
provided. Such criteria shall be based on
income data, population trends, and other data
determined relevant by the State.
(B) Existing criteria.--If a State has
previously established, after providing notice
and an opportunity for public comment,
affordability criteria that meet the
requirements of subparagraph (A), the State may
use the criteria for the purposes of this
subsection. For purposes of this Act, any such
criteria shall be treated as affordability
criteria established under this paragraph.
(C) Information to assist states.--The
Administrator may publish information to assist
States in establishing affordability criteria
under subparagraph (A).
(3) Priority.--A State may give priority to a
recipient for a project or activity eligible for
funding under section 603(c)(1) if the recipient meets
the State's affordability criteria.
(4) Set-aside.--
(A) In general.--In any fiscal year in which
the Administrator has available for obligation
more than $1,000,000,000 for the purposes of
this title, a State shall provide additional
subsidization under this subsection in the
amount specified in subparagraph (B) to
eligible entities described in paragraph (1)
for projects and activities identified in the
State's intended use plan prepared under
section 606(c) to the extent that there are
sufficient applications for such assistance.
(B) Amount.--In a fiscal year described in
subparagraph (A), a State shall set-aside for
purposes of subparagraph (A) an amount not less
than 25 percent of the difference between--
(i) the total amount that would have
been allotted to the State under
section 604 for such fiscal year if the
amount available to the Administrator
for obligation under this title for
such fiscal year had been equal to
$1,000,000,000; and
(ii) the total amount allotted to the
State under section 604 for such fiscal
year.
(5) Limitation.--The total amount of additional
subsidization provided under this subsection by a State
may not exceed 30 percent of the total amount of
capitalization grants received by the State under this
title in fiscal years beginning after September 30,
2009.
SEC. 604. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.
[(a) Formula.--Sums authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section for each of fiscal years 1989 and 1990 shall
be allotted by the Administrator in accordance with section
205(c) of this Act.]
(a) Allotments.--
(1) Fiscal years 2010 and 2011.--Sums appropriated to
carry out this title for each of fiscal years 2010 and
2011 shall be allotted by the Administrator in
accordance with the formula used to allot sums
appropriated to carry out this title for fiscal year
2009.
(2) Fiscal year 2012 and thereafter.--Sums
appropriated to carry out this title for fiscal year
2012 and each fiscal year thereafter shall be allotted
by the Administrator as follows:
(A) Amounts that do not exceed $1,350,000,000
shall be allotted in accordance with the
formula described in paragraph (1).
(B) Amounts that exceed $1,350,000,000 shall
be allotted in accordance with the formula
developed by the Administrator under subsection
(d).
(b) Reservation of Funds for Planning.--Each State shall
reserve each fiscal year [1 percent] 2 percent of the sums
allotted to such State under this section for such fiscal year,
or $100,000, whichever amount is greater, to carry out planning
under sections 205(j) and 303(e) of this Act.
* * * * * * *
(d) Formula Based on Water Quality Needs.--Not later than
September 30, 2011, and after providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall publish
an allotment formula based on water quality needs in accordance
with the most recent survey of needs developed by the
Administrator under section 516(b).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 606. AUDITS, REPORTS, AND FISCAL CONTROLS; INTENDED USE PLAN.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Intended Use Plan.--After providing for public comment
and review, [each State shall annually prepare] each State
(acting through the State's water quality management agency and
other appropriate agencies of the State) shall annually prepare
and publish a plan identifying the intended uses of the amounts
available to its water pollution control revolving fund. Such
intended use plan shall include, but not be limited to--
[(1) a list of those projects for construction of
publicly owned treatment works on the State's priority
list developed pursuant to section 216 of this Act and
a list of activities eligible for assistance under
sections 319 and 320 of this Act;]
(1) the State's priority list developed under section
603(g);
* * * * * * *
(4) assurances and specific proposals for meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (3), (4), (5), [and (6)]
(6), (15), and (17) of section 602(b) of this Act;
[and]
(5) the criteria and method established for the
distribution of funds[.]; and
(6) if the State does not fund projects and
activities in the order of the priority established
under section 603(g), an explanation of why such a
change in order is appropriate.
(d) Annual Report.--Beginning the first fiscal year after the
receipt of payments under this title, the State shall provide
an annual report to the Administrator describing how the State
has met the goals and objectives for the previous fiscal year
as identified in the plan prepared for the previous fiscal year
pursuant to subsection (c), including identification of loan
recipients, loan amounts, the eligible purpose under section
603(c) for which the assistance is provided, and loan terms and
similar details on other forms of financial assistance provided
from the water pollution control revolving fund.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 607. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Simplified Procedures.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
assist the States in establishing simplified procedures for
treatment works to obtain assistance under this title.
(b) Publication of Manual.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this section, and after providing
notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator
shall publish a manual to assist treatment works in obtaining
assistance under this title and publish in the Federal Register
notice of the availability of the manual.
(c) Compliance Criteria.--At the request of any State, the
Administrator, after providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment, shall assist in the development of criteria for
a State to determine compliance with the conditions of funding
assistance established under sections 602(b)(13) and
603(d)(1)(E).
SEC. 608. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF AMERICAN MATERIALS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of the funds made available by a State water pollution
control revolving fund as authorized under this title may be
used for the construction of treatment works unless the steel,
iron, and manufactured goods used in such treatment works are
produced in the United States.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case
in which the Administrator (in consultation with the Governor
of the State) finds that--
(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent
with the public interest;
(2) steel, iron, and manufactured goods are not
produced in the United States in sufficient and
reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory
quality; or
(3) inclusion of steel, iron, and manufactured goods
produced in the United States will increase the cost of
the overall project by more than 25 percent.
(c) Public Notification and Written Justification for
Waiver.--If the Administrator determines that it is necessary
to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding
under subsection (b), the Administrator shall--
(1) not less than 15 days prior to waiving
application of subsection (a), provide public notice
and the opportunity to comment on the Administrator's
intent to issue such waiver; and
(2) upon issuing such waiver, publish in the Federal
Register a detailed written justification as to why the
provision is being waived.
(d) Consistency With International Agreements.--This section
shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States
obligations under international agreements.
SEC. [607.] 609. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
purposes of this title the following sums:
[(1) $1,200,000,000 per fiscal year for each of
fiscal year 1989 and 1990;
[(2) $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 1991;
[(3) $1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 1992;
[(4) $1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; and
[(5) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 1994.]
(1) $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(2) $2,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
(3) $2,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(4) $2,900,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
(5) $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
----------
TITLE 46, UNITED STATES CODE
Subtitle Sec.
* * * * * * *
CLEARANCE, TONNAGE TAXES, AND DUTIES........................60101]
60101LEARANCE AND TONNAGE DUTIES......................................
* * * * * * *
[Subtitle VI--Clearance, Tonnage Taxes, and Duties]
Subtitle VI--Clearance and Tonnage Duties
Chapter Sec.
Arrival and Departure Requirements...........................60101
Tonnage Taxes and Light Money...............................60301]
60301onnage Duties and Light Money....................................
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 603--TONNAGE [TAXES] DUTIES AND LIGHT MONEY
Sec.
[60301. Regular tonnage taxes.
[60302. Special tonnage taxes.]
60301. Regular tonnage duties.
60302. Special tonnage duties.
60303. Light money.
[60304. Presidential suspension of tonnage taxes and light money.]
60304. Presidential suspension of tonnage duties and light money.
* * * * * * *
60313. Liability in rem for costs.
Sec. 60301. Regular tonnage [taxes] duties
[(a) Lower Rate.--A duty is imposed at the rate of 4.5 cents
per ton, not to exceed a total of 22.5 cents per ton per year,
for fiscal years 2006 through 2010, and 2 cents per ton, not to
exceed a total of 10 cents per ton per year, for each fiscal
year thereafter, at each entry in a port of the United States
of--
[(1) a vessel entering from a foreign port or place
in North America, Central America, the West Indies
Islands, the Bahama Islands, the Bermuda Islands, or
the coast of South America bordering the Caribbean Sea;
or
[(2) a vessel returning to the same port or place in
the United States from which it departed, and not
entering the United States from another port or place,
except--
[(A) a vessel of the United States;
[(B) a recreational vessel (as defined in
section 2101 of this title); or
[(C) a barge.
[(b) Higher Rate.--A duty is imposed at the rate of 13.5
cents per ton, not to exceed a total of 67.5 cents per ton per
year, for fiscal years 2006 through 2010, and 6 cents per ton,
not to exceed a total of 30 cents per ton per year, for each
fiscal year thereafter, on a vessel at each entry in a port of
the United States from a foreign port or place not named in
subsection (a)(1).]
(a) Lower Rate.--
(1) Imposition of duty.--A duty is imposed at the
rate described in paragraph (2) at each entry in a port
of the United States of--
(A) a vessel entering from a foreign port or
place in North America, Central America, the
West Indies Islands, the Bahama Islands, the
Bermuda Islands, or the coast of South America
bordering the Caribbean Sea; or
(B) a vessel returning to the same port or
place in the United States from which it
departed, and not entering the United States
from another port or place, except--
(i) a vessel of the United States;
(ii) a recreational vessel (as
defined in section 2101 of this title);
or
(iii) a barge.
(2) Rate.--The rate referred to in paragraph (1)
shall be--
(A) 4.5 cents per ton (but not more than a
total of 22.5 cents per ton per year) for
fiscal years 2006 through 2009;
(B) 9.0 cents per ton (but not more than a
total of 45 cents per ton per year) for fiscal
years 2010 through 2019; and
(C) 2 cents per ton (but not more than a
total of 10 cents per ton per year) for each
fiscal year thereafter.
(b) Higher Rate.--
(1) Imposition of duty.--A duty is imposed at the
rate described in paragraph (2) on a vessel at each
entry in a port of the United States from a foreign
port or place not named in subsection (a)(1).
(2) Rate.--The rate referred to in paragraph (1)
shall be--
(A) 13.5 cents per ton (but not more than a
total of 67.5 cents per ton per year) for
fiscal years 2006 through 2009;
(B) 27 cents per ton (but not more than a
total of $1.35 per ton per year) for fiscal
years 2010 through 2019; and
(C) 6 cents per ton (but not more than a
total of 30 cents per ton per year) for each
fiscal year thereafter.
(c) Exception for Vessels Entering Other Than by Sea.--
Subsection (a) does not apply to a vessel entering other than
by sea from a foreign port or place at which tonnage,
lighthouse, or other equivalent [taxes] duties are not imposed
on vessels of the United States.
Sec. 60302. Special tonnage [taxes] duties
(a) Entry From Foreign Port or Place.--Regardless of whether
a [tax] duty is imposed under section 60301 of this title, a
[tax] duty is imposed on a vessel at each entry in a port of
the United States from a foreign port or place at the following
rates:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Vessels Not of the United States Transporting Property
Between Districts.--Regardless of whether a [tax] duty is
imposed under section 60301 of this title, a [tax] duty of 50
cents per ton is imposed on a vessel not of the United States
at each entry in one customs district from another district
when transporting goods loaded in one district to be delivered
in another district.
(c) Exception for Vessels Becoming Documented.--The [tax]
duty of 50 cents per ton under this section does not apply to a
vessel that--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 60303. Light money
(a) Imposition of [Tax] Duty.--A [tax] duty of 50 cents per
ton, to be called ``light money'', is imposed on a vessel not
of the United States at each entry in a port of the United
States. This [tax] duty shall be imposed and collected under
the same regulations that apply to tonnage [taxes] duties.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 60304. Presidential suspension of tonnage [taxes] duties and light
money
If the President is satisfied that the government of a
foreign country does not impose discriminating or
countervailing duties to the disadvantage of the United States,
the President shall suspend the imposition of special tonnage
[taxes] duties and light money under sections 60302 and 60303
of this title on vessels of that country.
Sec. 60305. Vessels in distress
A vessel is exempt from tonnage [taxes] duties and light
money when it enters because it is in distress.
Sec. 60306. Vessels not engaged in trade
A vessel is exempt from tonnage [taxes] duties and light
money when not engaged in trade.
Sec. 60307. Vessels engaged in coastwise trade or the fisheries
A vessel with a registry endorsement or a coastwise
endorsement, trading from one port in the United States to
another port in the United States or employed in the bank,
whale, or other fisheries, is exempt from tonnage [taxes]
duties and light money.
Sec. 60308. Vessels engaged in Great Lakes trade
A documented vessel with a registry endorsement, engaged in
foreign trade on the Great Lakes or their tributary or
connecting waters in trade with Canada, does not become subject
to tonnage [taxes] duties or light money because of that trade.
Sec. 60309. Passenger vessels making trips between ports of the United
States and foreign ports
A passenger vessel making at least 3 trips per week between a
port of the United States and a foreign port is exempt from
tonnage [taxes] duties and light money.
Sec. 60310. Vessels making daily trips on interior waters
A vessel making regular daily trips between a port of the
United States and a port of Canada only on interior waters not
navigable to the ocean is exempt from tonnage [taxes] duties
and light money, except on its first clearing each year.
Sec. 60311. Hospital vessels in time of war
In time of war, a hospital vessel is exempt from tonnage
[taxes] duties, light money, and pilotage charges in the ports
of the United States if the vessel is one for which the
conditions of the international convention for the exemption of
hospital ships from taxation in time of war, concluded at The
Hague on December 21, 1904, are satisfied. The President by
proclamation shall name the vessels for which the conditions
are satisfied and state when the exemption begins and ends.
Sec. 60312. Rights under treaties preserved
This chapter and chapter 605 of this title do not affect a
right or privilege of a foreign country relating to tonnage
[taxes] duties or other duties on vessels under a law or treaty
of the United States.
Sec. 60313. Liability in rem for costs
A vessel is liable in rem for any amount due under this
chapter for that vessel and may be proceeded against for that
liability in the United States district court for any district
in which the vessel may be found.
* * * * * * *
----------
GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT OF 2002
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--GREAT LAKES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 106. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
[(1) In general.--In addition to any amounts
authorized under other provisions of law, there is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010.]
(1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized
under other laws, there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section--
(A) $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2004 through 2009; and
(B) $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2010 through 2014.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. MICA, MR. BOOZMAN, MR. COBLE, MR. MACK, MR.
SHUSTER, MR. MORAN, MR. DUNCAN, MR. MILLER, MR. EHLERS, MR. BROWN, MS.
FALLIN, MR. LATTA, MR. OLSON
The reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan
Fund (SRF) Program is an important step towards addressing the
needs of our critical and aging wastewater infrastructure. We
welcome the environmental improvements that many provisions in
this bill would bring. However, while H.R. 1262 represents an
important step forward for clean water in many respects, it
also takes a significant step backwards by mandating and
expanding upon the past application of the Davis-Bacon Act's
prevailing wage requirements in the SRF program.
This new expansion of Davis-Bacon requirements would
inflate the cost of clean water projects across our nation and
ultimately result in fewer projects being built, fewer jobs
being created, and less clean water being achieved. By adding
to the cost of public construction, the Davis-Bacon Act
disproportionately impacts small, rural, and disadvantaged
communities, which can least afford to pay the higher cost of
projects. The revolving, non-federal component of the State
Revolving Funds has operated successfully since 1987 without
the onerous application of Davis-Bacon, the effect of which
will be further restriction of state and local control.
It has become evident to the Minority on the Committee that
the history of the Davis-Bacon Act is in need of clarification.
The Act was created in 1931 with discriminatory intent to
prevent low paid African Americans from taking jobs from other
blue collar workers in New York. Even in recent history, only a
few small and minority-owned firms could afford to pay the
higher wages that the Davis-Bacon Act requires. As a result,
they are disadvantaged by Davis-Bacon contracts, and many of
them would not and will not pursue those contracts. Moreover,
projects operating under Davis-Bacon requirements cannot hire
local, lesser-skilled employees to work on these infrastructure
projects, thereby limiting job opportunities for many workers
and hindering state and local efforts to provide entry-level
jobs.
Since the inception of the SRF, only the initial Federal
seed money has been subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements. State money, including the state match, loan
repayments, interest, and other non-federal funds are not
subject to these requirements. There is no precedent for
applying the Davis-Bacon Act to state funds within this
program.
For these reasons, we oppose the imposition of Davis-Bacon
Act prevailing wage requirements on the Clean Water SRF
Program.
John L. Mica.
John Boozman.
Howard Coble.
Connie Mack.
Bill Shuster.
Jerry Moran.
John J. Duncan, Jr.
Gary Miller.
Vernon J. Ehlers.
Henry E. Brown, Jr.
Mary Fallin.
Robert E. Latta.
Pete Olson.
