Clean Water Reference Book, 1994

WEEKLY WATER NOTES
A Regular Update on CWA and SDWA Reauthorizations
May 23, 1994

Senate Passes Drinking Water Bill, Rejects Unfunded Mandates
* On May 18th, the Senate passed S. 2019 (95-3), rejecting many weakening
amendments and accepting significantly compromised amendments on takings and risk
assessment. Administrator Browner called the action "proof that we can break the gridlock
and pass environmental legislation in this Congress." She also pledged to work to strengthen
it in key areas such as source water protection as it moves to the House of Representatives.
She said, "We must prevent pollution from entering our drinking water in the first place."

Mitchell Urges Baucus to Move Clean Water Bill After Memorial Day
* Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME) asked the Chairman of the.
Environment and Public Works Committee to move Clean Water to the floor in the first
week of June, according to Senate Staff. On May 10th, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works filed the Committee report and introduced S. 2093, the new
vehicle for reauthorization.

Administrator Browner Stumps for Clean Water Act Reauthorization in Florida
* EPA Administrator Carol Browner joined Florida Governor Lawton Chiles and
Congressman Sam Gibbons (D-FL) in Tampa last week to promote the Clean Water Act
reauthorization. "To continue the inspiring progress we see here at Tampa Bay, we need a
new Clean Water Act," said Administrator Browner. Earlier, in a February 22nd letter to
Administrator Browner, Governor Chiles indicated his "strong support for reauthorization of
the Clean Water Act."

New House Drinking Water Bill Includes Many A^niinistr^tjoo Principles
>• Representatives Lambert (D-AR), Studds (D-MA), and Synar (D-OK) introduced
legislation to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. Ms. Lambert noted that "our purpose in
introducing this bill is to alleviate the burdens on small water systems -while pursuing the
goal of pollution prevention. By encouraging pollution prevention through the State and local
establishment of pollution prevention .programs,: we can stop problems before they start.1*

Budget Director Leon Panetta to Join Administrator Browner at House. Hearings
* In a demonstration of Administration commitment, Director Panetta will testify on
May 26 before the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Panetta will
address unfunded mandates and takings issues among other items. Administrator Browner
will address the critical issues of the State Revolving Fund and polluted run-off at the May
24 hearing.
Weekly Water Notes 4 EPA's Office of Water * Phone 202-260-5700 * Fax: 202-260-5711

-------
                   WEEKLY  WATER  NOTES

                        A Regular Update on CWA and SDWA Reauthorizations

                                       June 2, 1994
                 New EPA Profile on Economic Benefits of Clean Water
       >  Administrator Browner released "Clean Water: A Memorial Day Perspective" last Friday,
documenting the importance of clean water to the nation's communities.  The report also quantified
national job growth estimates in the hundreds of thousands (on a state-by-state basis) associated with
enactment of the Administration's proposed State Revolving  Loan Fund program.  Assistant
Administrator Perciasepe presented copies of the profile to all Members of Congress before the
Memorial Day recess.  Additional copies are available from  EPA's Office of Water.

            Administrator yisits Coney  Island for Memorial Day CWA Event
       >  Administrator Browner joined Regional Administrator Jeanne Fox, Representative Jerrold
Nadler (D-NY), local officials, and local business owners at the Coney Island Boardwalk last Friday
to discuss how clean water creates jobs and keeps the nation's communities healthy and thriving.
Representative Nadler, a member.of the House Public Works Committee, said, "There are those in
Congress who want to water down the Clean Water Act.  I will fight to see that they do not succeed."

                     Baucus and Mineta Speak Out for  Clean Water
       >  In separate speeches last week, Senate Environment Committee Chairman Max Baucus
 (D-MT) and House Public Works Committee Chairman Norman Mineta (D-CA) made the case for
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act this year.  Speaking to the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies, Baucus issued a challenge to critics of a broad reauthorization.  He said, "This
year, we will get a comprehensive Clean Water Act or we will get nothing."  Mineta said,  "We can
achieve water quality goals in  a fairer, more  efficient, and less burdensome way by improving the
Clean Water Act rather than by just letting it march forward on automatic pilot."

             Milwaukee Mayor Urges Protection of Drinking Water Supplies
       >  Mayor John Norquist asked Congress to adopt a strong program to protect sources of
drinking water and to authorize $50 million in research  on waterborne  pathogens.  "Reauthorization
of SDWA is not an 'unfunded' vs. 'funded' mandate issue as much as  it is a public health issue,"
Norquist said in a letter to Senate Environment Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT).

                Browner Vows to Improve Federal-State-Local Partnership
       *  In a May 30, Washington Post opinion editorial, Administrator Browner said, "This
administration believes passionately that the federal government must provide the leadership necessary
to guarantee public health and natural resource.protection for all Americans.  But we believe just as
passionately in improving the federal-state partnership."  Browner observed that the effect of an
attack on federal regulations could be something most state and  local officials don't want any part
of-a serious weakening of public health protection, but stated her belief that we can make those
protections as affordable for state and local governments as they are effective.
          Weekly Watef Notes f EPA's Office of Water + Phone 202-260-5700 * Fax: 202-260-5711

-------
               WEEKLY  WATER NOTES

                    A Regular Update on CWA and SDWA Reauthorizations

     SPECIAL EDITION ON HOUSE CWA HEARINGS

                                   June 7, 1994

On May 24 and 26, 1994 the House Public Works Subcommittee on Water Resources and
the Environment held over ten hours  of hearings on the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act.  Over two dozen  witnesses presented their views, including Administrator Carol
Browner and Budget Director Leon Panetta.

                    Hearings Open with Statements of Support
       >  Rep. Sherwood Boehlert  (R-NY),  a co-sponsor of H.R. 3948, said, "The Clean
Water Act is one of our nation's most important infrastructure and environmental statutes and its
reauthorization is a goal to which we should all be committed." Subcommittee Chairman
Douglas Applegate (D-OH) said, "I  hope we remain mindful of the fact that all of us, and all of
our constituents, regardless of political affiliation, are dependent on clean water for recreation,
our livelihood and  our survival."  Also,  Governor Ben Nelson (D-NE),  speaking on behalf of
the National Governors'  Association, said, "Let me begin by clearly stating that the Governors
are committed to passage of amendments to the Clean Water Act this year."

     Nonpoint Source, Wetlands Programs Will Improve Farm  Management
       *>  In his statement during the House CWA hearings, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD)
said, "The nonpoint source program  is not there to damage farms,  but to improve them,"
and,  "no net loss of wetlands means  no net loss of agriculture."  Rep. Gilchrest added that
Maryland is losing much  of its economic base - its oysters, clams, and other wildlife -
because of wetlands losses. Ralph Grossi, President of American Farmland Trust, in
supporting new nonpoint  source programs said that agriculture should be "a full partner
helping to meet the challenge of cleaning up America's waters." Jerry King, testifying for
the National Pork Producers Council, said, "We think the reauthorization process provides
a great opportunity to refocus our efforts and resources to those areas where we can make
the most significant impact on improving the quality of our waters."

                    Citizens Testify for a New Clean Water Act
       * Several citizens that have been victims of poor water quality testified for a
reauthorized Clean Water Act. Albert Goetze, a fisherman from Easton, Maryland, said,
"What's missing is a concern  for the sale of seafood products, the income derived from
recreational fishing, the tidewater industries, and most importantly, the fishermen and  the
tidewater property owners. The outcome of this debate to reauthorize CWA directly affects
the economic interests of millions of these citizens more than any other group."


      Weekly Water Notes  * EPA's Office of Water 4 Phone 202-260-5700 4 Fax: 202-260-5711

-------
         CLEAN WATER REFERENCE  BOOK
        Introductory Letter to Member of Congress
                          June 8, 1994
                       Table of Contents
   What's at Stake in  Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Alabama: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
     Alaska: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Arizona: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Arkansas: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    California:  What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Colorado: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
   Connecticut:  What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Delaware: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
Washington, D.C.: What's  at Stake in Clean  Water Act Reauthorization?
     Florida: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Georgia: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
     Hawaii: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
      Idaho: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
     Illinois: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Indiana: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
      Iowa: What's  at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
     Kansas: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Kentucky: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Louisiana: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
     Maine: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Maryland: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
  Massachusetts:  What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Michigan: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
   Minnesota:  What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
   Mississippi: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Missouri: What's at Stake in Clean  Water Act Reauthorization?
    Montana: What's at Stake in Clean  Water Act Reauthorization?
    Nebraska: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Nevada: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
 New  Hampshire: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
   New Jersey: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
  New Mexico: What's at  Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
   New York: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
 North Carolina: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
  North Dakota:  What's at Stake in Clean  Water Act Reauthorization?
      Ohio: What's  at Stake in Clean Water  Act Reauthorization?
   Oklahoma:  What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
    Oregon: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
  Pennsylvania: What's at  Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
  Rhode Island: What's at  Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
 South Carolina: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
  South Dakota:  What's at Stake in Clean  Water Act Reauthorization?

-------
             Tennessee: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
              Texas: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
               Utah: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
             Vermont: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
             Virginia: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
            Washington:  What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
           West Virginia: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
             Wisconsin: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
             Wyoming: What's at Stake in Clean Water Act Reauthorization?
  Comparison of President's Clean Water Initiative. S. 2093  and H.R. 3948
             [Also may be referred to as Side-by-Side Analysis]
                  President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative
                               February 1994
                             EPA 800/R-94-001
                 President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative:
            Analysis of Benefits and Costs - Executive  Summar
                                March 1994
                             EPA  800/S-94-001
              A Summary of "Protecting America's Wetlands:
                  A Fair. Flexible, and Effective Approach"
                              August 24, 1993
[The "Administration  Wetlands Plan" is included with the summary; call the
                 EPA Wetlands  Hotline  at 1-800-832-7828]
                 Clean  Water: A Memorial Day Perspective
                                 May 1994
                             EPA 800/R-94-003
               Fact Sheet: National Water Quality Inventory -
                          1992 Report to Congress
                                 April 1994
                             EPA  841/F-94-002
  [Referred to on the  "Table of Contents" as "Results of the  1992 National
                          Water Quality Inventory"]

-------
                   The Clean Water Act: Rhetoric and Reality
   Weekly Water Notes: A Regular Update on CWA and SDWA Reauthorizations
                                - May 23, 1994
                                - June 2, 1994
                                - June 7, 1994
      [Referred to in the "Table of Contents" as "Clean Water: In the News"]
                                    * * *
         [All of the following are referred to in the "Table of Contents" as
                          "Issue-Specific  Fact Sheets"]

    Clean Water Act Fact Sheets: Combined Sewer Overflows and Storm  Water
                                  May 1994
                                    EPA
              Clean Water Act Fact Sheets: Controlling Agricultural
                          Sources of Water Pollution
                                  May 1994
                                    EPA
              Clean Water Act Fact Sheets: Watershed Management
                        - Empowering States and Locals
                                  May  1994
                                    EPA
          Clean Water Act Fact Sheets: Wetland Fact Sheet - H.R.  1330
                                  May  1994
                                    EPA
                   Clean Water Act Fact Sheets:  The Issue -
When Does a Government Action Affecting Private Property Amount to a "Taking,"
          and What are the Takings Implications of Wetlands Regulation?
                                  May  1994
                                    EPA

-------
   Clean Water Act Fact Sheets: Management Measures for Controlling
          Nonpoint Source Pollution from Roads and Highways
                              May 1994
                                 EPA
                 Fact Sheet: Alaska Wetlands Initiative
                              May 1994
                                 EPA
               Clean Water Act Fact Sheets:  Citizen Suits
                              May 1994
                                 EPA
        Clean Water Act Fact Sheets: Appropriate Injunctive Relief
                              May 1994
                                 EPA
Clean Water Act Fact Sheets: Federal and Citizen Overfiling of State Action
                              May 1994
                                 EPA

-------
  What's at
    Stake?
£$1600 Columbus, 43221  92-32175

-------
ALABAMA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAY 1994

State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Alabama has received more than $87 million in grants, more than 1% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure--a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 1960 jobs in the state. In 1992, Alabama reported
that it still needed $848 million for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Alabama would receive $147 million, creating over 3295 jobs. Alabama
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 26% of Alabama's assessed rivers, 21% of their assessed lakes, and 23% of their
assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy
habitat for aquatic life. Alabama has also lost 50% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will
allow Alabama to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in rivers and streams - agriculture affects over 1,300 miles
(40%) of their impaired river miles. Industrial point sources impair more lake acres (69% of the impaired
lake acres) than any other source. Estuarine water quality is impacted by storm sewers, urban runoff, and
septic tanks. Reauthorization will allow Alabama to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff
and finance municipal wastewater treatment.

Storm Water
Alabama has been a leader in reducing the water quality impacts of storm water discharges. They have
designated 39 cities and 5 counties as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems and have
issued permits to over 3,600 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Alabama to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
ALASKA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Alaska has received more than $40 million in grants. This money has been used to help build
waste water infrastructure~a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than 890
jobs in the state. In 1992, Alaska reported that it still needed $202 million for improving water pollution
control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Alaska would receive $79 million, creating over 1760 jobs. Alaska stands
to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that almost 3,000 miles of Alaska's abundant rivers are not always suitable for basic
uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Urban runoff and
development are the major source of pollution in rivers and 26 impaired lakes. The State attributes
impairments at 34 estuaries to harbor activities, urban development, and oil and gas development. Clean
Water Act reauthorization will allow Alaska to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

The Alaska Wetlands Initiative was established to ensure appropriate regulatory flexibility in protecting
Alaska's wetlands. In May 1994, the final report developed by representatives of Federal agencies, in
consultation with a diverse and comprehensive group of Alaskan stakeholders and the public, was released.
Key actions include implementation of abbreviated permit processing procedures for construction of water,
wastewater, and sanitation facilities in Alaskan villages; continued development of general permits;
strengthening State, local, and Native roles; and clarifying practicability and flexibility considerations to
reflect circumstances in Alaska.

Storm Water
EPA Region X, working with Alaska, has designated 1 city as needing permits for the municipal storm
sewer systems and has issued permits to over 940 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Alaska to continue to focus on high-priority discharges
by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
ARIZONA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Arizona has received more than $39 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development—and has created more than
890 jobs in the state. In 1992, Arizona reported that it still needed $1.3 billion for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Arizona would receive $89 million, creating over 1990 jobs. Arizona
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 74% of Arizona's assessed rivers and 73% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Arizona
has lost more than 35% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure that the state
continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Agriculture is the predominant source of pollution in rivers and streams - agriculture affects over 47% of
Arizona's impaired river miles. Hydrologic modification (including channelization, dredging, and dam
construction) is also widespread in Arizona and impacts all types of waterbodies. Clean Water Act
reauthorization will allow Arizona to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Arizona to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
ARKANSAS
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Arkansas has received more than $67 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than
1500 jobs in the state. In 1992, Arkansas reported that it still needed $226 million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Arkansas would receive $86 million, creating over 1920 jobs. Arkansas
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 51 % of Arkansas' assessed rivers are not always suitable for basic uses, such as
fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Arkansas reports that all of their lake
waters fully support basic uses. Agriculture is the predominant source of pollution in rivers and streams -
agriculture affects over 70% of Arkansas' impaired river miles. Clean Water Act reauthorization will
allow Arkansas to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff. Arkansas has also lost more than
70% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Arkansas to receive grants to help
implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Storm Water

One city in Arkansas is required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. The State
has issued permits to over 1850 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Arkansas to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
CALIFORNIA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, California has received more than $670 million in grants, almost 8% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 15,000 jobs in the state. In 1992, California reported
that it still needed $8.4 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, California would receive $940 million, creating over 21,000 jobs.
California stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 82% of California's assessed rivers and 92% of their assessed lakes are not suitable
for basic uses like fishing and swimming. People can't safely eat fish caught in 29 areas in California
because the fish contain pollutants like Mercury, DDT, PCB's, Selenium, Chlordane, and Dioxin-many of
which come from polluted runoff. California has also lost more than 90% of its historic wetlands base, a
greater percentage than any other state. Reauthorization will ensure that California continues to receive
grants to protect wetlands.

Agriculture is the biggest remaining source of the problem-over 75% of California's impaired river miles
are affected by agricultural sources. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow California to continue to
receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water

California has been a leader in reducing the water quality impacts of storm water discharges from
municipalities. They have designated 217 cities and 6 counties as needing permits for the municipal storm
sewer systems and have issued permits to over 11,000 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow California to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt these small sources.

-------
COLORADO
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Colorado has received more than $72 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development--and has created more than
1610 jobs in the state. In 1992, Colorado reported that it still needed $549 million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Colorado would receive $105 million, creating over 2355 jobs. Colorado
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 12% of Colorado's assessed rivers and 7% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Colorado
has lost 50% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Colorado to receive grants to help
implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in rivers and streams - agriculture affects 60% of Colorado's
impaired river miles. Mining also pollutes a large number of streams -1,283 miles are affected by past
and present mining activity. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Colorado to continue to receive
grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water

Colorado has designated 5 cities and 1 county as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems
and have issued permits to over 2,160 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Colorado to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
CONNECTICUT
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Connecticut has received more than $146 million in grants. This money has been used to
help build waste water infrastructure--a necessary part of growth and development—and has created more
than 3270 jobs in the state. In 1992, Connecticut reported that it still needed $2.1 billion for improving
water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Connecticut would receive $161 million, creating over 3610 jobs.
Connecticut stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 39% of Connecticut's assessed rivers, 13% of their assessed lakes, and 40% of their
assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy
habitat for aquatic life. Connecticut has lost more than 70% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization
will allow Connecticut to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Wastewater treatment plants, storm sewers, and urban runoff continue to generate most of the pollution
entering Connecticut's rivers and estuaries. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Connecticut to
continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff and finance municipal wastewater treatment.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
One city in Connecticut is required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. The State
has issued permits to over 1,200 industries and construction activities.

Connecticut has identified about 13 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative
will give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various
options in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
DELAWARE
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Delaware has received more than $38 million in grants, almost 1/2% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of
growth and development--and has created more than 867 jobs in the state. In 1992, Delaware reported
that it still needed $188 million for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Delaware would receive $64 million, creating over 1,445 jobs. Delaware
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 88% of Delaware's assessed rivers, 70% of their assessed lakes, and 100% of their
assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy
habitat for aquatic life. Delaware has also lost more than 50% of its historic wetlands base.
Reauthorization will allow Delaware to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation
Plan.

Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in Delaware's waters - agriculture affects over 96% of
Delaware's impaired river miles, 100% of their impaired lake acres, and 100% of their estuarine waters.
Urban runoff and storm sewers also affect 100% of estuarine waters. Clean Water Act reauthorization
will allow Delaware to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water

Delaware has designated 13 cities and 1 county as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems
and have issued permits to over 350 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Delaware to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
Water Quality

The District's data shows that 100% of the District's assessed waters are not always suitable for basic
uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic, life. Elevated fecal bacteria
concentrations prevent swimming and wading in most District waters. The principal sources of pollutants
are urban runoff and storm sewers - urban runoff and storm sewers affect all of the District's impaired
waters. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow the District to continue to receive grants to control
polluted runoff.

The District of Columbia is designated as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems and has
issued permits to over a dozen industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses could be subject to storm water controls with
municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality standards within 3
years. The Clinton Initiative would allow the District of Columbia to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water quality
standards to 10 years.

The District of Columbia has been identified as in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative
will give the District the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various options in
selecting final CSO controls.

-------
FLORIDA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAY 1994

State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Florida has received more than $319 million in grants, almost 4% of the national total of $8.5
billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of growth
and development-and has created more than 7,100 jobs in the state. In 1992, Florida reported that they
still needed $6.9 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Florida would receive $444 million, creating over 9,900 jobs. Florida
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 33% of Florida's assessed rivers, 68% of their assessed lakes, 38% of their assessed
estuaries, and 5% of their ocean shoreline are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing,
swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Urban runoff and storm sewers impair two-thirds
of the impaired stream miles, 99% of the impaired lake acres, and 93% of the impaired estuarine waters.
Agriculture affects 64% of the impaired river miles, 97% of the impaired lake acres, and 51% of the
impaired estuarine waters.

People cannot safely eat fish caught in 27 river segments, 36 lakes, 1 ocean shore site, and 13 mixed
waterbodies because the fish are contaminated with mercury. Florida has also lost more than 45% of its
historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Florida to receive grants to implement a State Program
General Permit to reduce unnecessary duplication between State and Federal programs.

Storm Water
Florida has been a leader in reducing the water quality impacts of storm water discharges. They have
designated 134 cities and 13 counties as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems and have
issued permits to over 2,850 industries and construction activities. Under the current Act, smaller mom-
and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water controls. The Clinton
Initiative would allow Florida to continue to focus on high-priority discharges by continuing to exempt
small sources.

-------
GEORGIA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAY 1994

State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Georgia has received more than $190 million in grants, almost 2.2% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 4265 jobs in the state. In 1992, Georgia reported that
they still needed $1.9 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Georgia would receive $222 million, creating over 4980 jobs. Georgia
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 71% of Georgia's assessed rivers, 9% of their assessed lakes, and 47% of their
assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy
habitat for aquatic life. Georgia has also lost more than 20% of its historic wetlands base.
Reauthorization would help ensure that the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection
programs.

Urban runoff and storm sewers are the main source of contaminants in Georgia's rivers and lakes - urban
runoff and storm sewers affect over 40% of Georgia's impaired stream miles and 68% of their impaired
lake acres. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Georgia to continue to receive grants to control
polluted runoff.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

Georgia has designated 39 cities and 9 counties as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems
and has issued permits to over 2,500 industries and construction activities.

-------
HAWAII
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Hawaii has received more than $62 million in grants. This money has been used to help build
waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than 1,400
jobs in the state. In 1992, Hawaii reported that they still needed $271 million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Hawaii would receive $101 million, creating over 2,283 jobs. Hawaii
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 13% of Hawaii's assessed shoreline and 2% of Hawaii's assessed estuaries are not
always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.
Hawaii reported that all of its rivers are fully supporting basic uses, but half of their assessed stream miles
are threatened by pollution. Nonpoint sources, including agriculture, industrial runoff, and urban runoff
cause the most damage to Hawaii's streams, estuaries, and coastal waters. Clean Water Act
reauthorization will allow Hawaii to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water

One county in Hawaii is required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. The stat
has issued permits to over 219 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Hawaii to continue to focus on high-priority discharges
by continuing to exempt these small sources.

-------
IDAHO
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Idaho has received more than $38 million in grants. This money has been used to help build
waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development~and has created more than 865
jobs in the state. In 1992, Idaho reported that they still needed $253 million for improving water pollution
control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Idaho would receive $64 million, creating over 1,447 jobs. Idaho stands to
lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 92% of Idaho's assessed rivers and 43% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.
Agriculture, including grazing, has the greatest impact on Idaho's rivers and lakes. Clean Water Act
reauthorization will allow Idaho to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Idaho has also lost more than 55% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure that
the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Storm Water

EPA Region X, working with Idaho, has designated 1 city and 1 county as needing permits for the
municipal storm sewer systems and have issued permits to over 300 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Idaho to continue to focus on high-priority discharges
by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
ILLINOIS
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Illinois has received $375 million in grants, nearly 4.5% of the national total of $8.5 billion.
This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and
development-and has created more than 8,000 jobs in the state. In 1992, Illinois reported that it still
needed $3.1 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Illinois would receive nearly $600 million, creating over 13,000 jobs.
Illinois stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 55% of Illinois' assessed rivers and 91% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses like fishing, swimming, and providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. People
cannot safely eat fish caught at 18 sites because the fish are contaminated with PCB's, chlordane, and
dieldrin. Illinois has also lost more than 85% of its original wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow
Illinois to receive grants for programs to provide flood control and protect critical habitat for Illinois'
threatened and endangered species.

Agriculture is the most extensive source of impairment in the state's rivers, affecting over 90% of the
impaired river miles in Illinois. The combination of agriculture and the destruction of vegetation on lake
shorelines affect almost all of the State's impaired lake waters. Reauthorization will ensure that Illinois
continues to receive grants to control polluted runoff from agricultural sources.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's)
One city in Illinois is required to be issued permits for the municiple storm sewer systems. Under the
current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water
controls with municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality standards
within 3 years. The Clinton Initiative would allow Iowa to continue to focus on high-priority discharges
by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water quality standards
to 10 years.
Illinois has identified about 107 communities in need of CSO controls. The President's Initiative will give
them the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
INDIANA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Indiana has received more than $142 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure--a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than
3,192 jobs in the state. In 1992, Indiana reported that they still needed $1.7 billion for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Indiana would receive $317 million, creating over 7,100 jobs. Indiana
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data indicate that 24% of Indiana's assessed rivers and 1 % of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. People
cannot safely eat fish caught in 19 river segments, 1 lake, and along the Great Lake's shoreline because
the fish are contaminated with PCBs and chlordane. Indiana has also lost more than 85% of its historic
wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Indiana to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland
Conservation Plan.

Municipal wastewater treatment plants are the leading source of pollutants in Indiana's rivers and lakes -
city sewage systems affect almost half of the State's impaired rivers and 65% of their impaired lake acres.
Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Indiana to continue to receive grants to finance municipal
wastewater treatment.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Two cities in Indiana are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. The State
has issued permits to over 1,750 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls with municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality
standards within 3 years. The Clinton Initiative would allow Indiana to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water quality
standards to 10 years.
Indiana has identified about 125 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give them the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts in selecting controls.

-------
IOWA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Iowa has received more than $106 million in grants. This money has been used to help build
waste water inftastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than 2,300
jobs in the state. In 1992, Iowa reported that it still needed $81 million for improving water pollution
control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Iowa would receive $178 million, creating over 3,900 jobs. Iowa stands to
lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data indicate that 95% of Iowa's assessed rivers and 49% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. This is
primarily attributed to sediment and nutrients from nonpoint sources, including agriculture, urban runoff,
and storm sewers. Agriculture impairs over 9,000 river miles (99.7% of the impaired river miles), and
over 23,000 lake acres (97% of the impaired lake acres). Point sources also impact approximately 5% of
the stream miles assessed. Toxics impair the Red Rock Reservoir. People cannot safely eat fish caught in
2 river segments and 1 lake because the fish are contaminated with PCBs and chlordane.

Iowa has also lost more than 85% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure that
the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Iowa has designated 3 cities as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems and has issued
permits to over 2,100 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls with municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality
standards within 3 years. The Clinton Initiative would allow Iowa to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water quality
standards to 10 years.
Iowa has identified about 20 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will give
them the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts in selecting final controls.

-------
KANSAS
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Kansas has received more than $71 million in grants. This money has been used to help build
waste water inftastructure-a necessary part of growth and development--and has created more than 1,590
jobs in the state. In 1992, Kansas reported that it still needed $618 million for improving water pollution
control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Kansas would receive $119 million, creating over 2,660 jobs. Kansas
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.
Water Quality

State data show that 97% of Kansas' assessed rivers and 99% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Kansas
has also lost more than 45% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Kansas to receive
grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in Kansas - agriculture affects all of the impaired river miles
in Kansas and 87% of the impaired lake acres. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Kansas to
continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Three cities in Kansas are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. Under the
current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water
controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Kansas to continue to focus on high-priority discharges by
continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
KENTUCKY
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Kentucky has received more than $138 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development--and has created more than
3,090 jobs in the state. In 1992, Kentucky reported that it still needed $1.3 billion for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Kentucky would receive $167 million, creating over 3,750 jobs. Kentucky
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 32% of Kentucky's assessed rivers and 9% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic .uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Kentucky
has also lost more than 80% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure that the state
continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Agriculture, municipal wastewater treatment plants, and mining continue to degrade Kentucky's rivers and
lakes. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Kentucky to continue to receive grants to control
polluted runoff and finance municipal wastewater treatment.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

Two cities and one county in Kentucky are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer
systems. The State has issued permits to over 1,500 industries and construction activities.

Kentucky has identified about 19 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts in selecting final
controls.

-------
LOUISIANA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAY 1994

State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Louisiana has received more than $98 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure--a necessary part of growth and development~and has created more than
2197 jobs in the state. In 1992, Louisiana reported that it still needed $1.2 billion for improving water
pollution control infrastructure.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Louisiana would receive $144 million, creating over 3240 jobs. Louisiana
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 53% of Louisiana's assessed rivers, 52% of their assessed lakes, and 17% of their
assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy
habitat for aquatic life. Numerous sources continue to damage Louisiana's surface waters.

Louisiana has lost more than 45% of its historic wetlands base. To stem this loss, a federal/state task
force developed the Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan and the Wetland Conservation Plan.
Reauthorization will allow Louisiana to receive funding to help implement these plans.

Agriculture, resource extraction, urban runoff/storm sewers, and municipal wastewater treatment plants
impact thousands of miles of rivers and streams. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Louisiana to
continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff and finance municipal wastewater treatment.

Storm Water
EPA Region VI, working with Louisiana, has designated 7 cities and 2 counties as needing permits for the
municipal storm sewer systems and have issued permits to over 1,365 industries and construction
activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Louisiana to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
MAINE
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAY 1994

State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Maine has received more than $60 million in grants. This money has been used to help build
waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of growth and development—and has created more than 1360
jobs in the state. In 1992, Maine reported that it still needed $360 million for improving water pollution
control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Maine would receive $102 million, creating over 2280 jobs. Maine stands
to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 2% of Maine's assessed rivers, 21% of their assessed lakes, and 10% of their
assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy
habitat for aquatic life. Maine has also lost 20% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow
Maine to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Industrial point sources remain the leading source of pollution in Maine's rivers and streams, while urban
runoff and storm sewers are the leading source of pollution in Maine's lakes - urban runoff and storm
sewers affect 60% of the State's impaired lake acres. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Maine
to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

EPA Region I, working with Maine, has issued permits to over 380 industries and construction activities.
Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Maine to continue to focus on high-priority discharges
by continuing to exempt smaJl sources.

Maine has identified about 53 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various options
in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
MARYLAND
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Maryland has received more than $189 million in grants, almost 2.2% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 4,240 jobs in the state. In 1992, Maryland reported
that they still needed $1.5 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Maryland would receive $318 million, creating over 7,130 jobs. Maryland
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 7% of Maryland's assessed rivers, 19% of their assessed lakes, and 96% of their
assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy
habitat for aquatic life. Maryland has also lost more than 70% of its historic wetlands base.
Reauthorization would help ensure that the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection
programs.

Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in Maryland's surface waters - agriculture affects 79% of
Maryland's impaired stream miles, all of the State's impaired lake acres, and 70% of Maryland's impaired
estuarine waters. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Maryland to continue to receive grants to
control polluted runoff.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Maryland has designated 7 cities and 10 counties as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer
systems and has issued permits to over 1,835 industries and construction activities.

Maryland has identified about 12 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various options
in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
MASSACHUSETTS
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Massachusetts has received more than $333 million in grants, almost 4% of the national total
of $8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more .than 7,500 jobs in the state. In 1992, Massachusetts
reported that it still needed $7.7 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Massachusetts would receive $446 million, creating over 10,000 jobs.
Massachusetts stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 61% of Massachusetts' assessed rivers, 62% of their assessed lakes, and 70% of
their assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing
healthy habitat for aquatic life. Urban runoff and storm sewers are the predominant source of
contamination in rivers and streams and stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows are the primary
source of contamination in the impaired estuarine waters. Massachusetts has also lost more than 25% of
its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure that the state continues to receive grants to
develop wetlands protection programs.

People cannot safely eat fish caught in 12 river segments, 7 lakes, 2 estuarine waterbodies, and 1 mixed
waterbody because the fish are contaminated with PCBs, dioxin, mercury, DDT, and chlordane.

The Clinton Administration also proposes to reduce polluted runoff by setting clear performance goals and
allowing flexible measures to achieve those goals. The Administration is committed to an approach that
will achieve water quality goals while allowing enough time (10 years) to fully implement good
management practices.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
EPA Region I, working with Massachusetts, has designated 3 cities as needing permits for the municipal
storm sewer systems and has issued permits to over 860 industries and construction activities.

Massachusetts has identified about 30 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative
will give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various
options in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
MICHIGAN
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Michigan has received more than $346 million in grants, almost 4% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure--a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 7,750 jobs in the state. In 1992, Michigan reported
that it still needed $3.7 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Michigan would receive $565 million, creating over 12,600 jobs.
Michigan stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 6% of Michigan's assessed rivers, 5% of their assessed lakes, and 100% of their
Great Lakes shoreline are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing
healthy habitat for aquatic life. PCB's are contaminating water and fish in the Great Lakes and sediments
contaminated by discontinued industries are a primary source of this chemical. Reauthorization will allow
Michigan to receive grants to help fund their Section 404 dredged material permit program.

People cannot safely eat fish caught in 35 river segments, 19 lakes, and along the entire Great Lakes
shoreline because the fish are contaminated with PCB's, mercury, dioxin, and chlordane.

The state identified agriculture as the most common source of river impairment. The Clinton
Administration proposes to further reduce polluted runoff by setting clear performance goals and allowing
flexible measures to achieve those goals. The Administration is committed to an approach that will
achieve water quality goals while allowing enough time (10 years) to fully implement good management
practices.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Five cities in Michigan are required to be issued permits for municiple storm sewer systems. The state
has issued permits to over 450 construction activities.

Michigan has identified about 75 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various options
in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
MINNESOTA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Minnesota has received more than $144 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of growth and development—and has created more than
3,225 jobs in the state. In 1992, Minnesota reported that it still needed $972 million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Minnesota would receive $241 million, creating over 5,415 jobs.
Minnesota stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 77% of Minnesota's assessed rivers, 83% of their assessed lakes, and 100% of their
Great Lakes shoreline are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing
healthy habitat for aquatic life. People cannot safely eat fish caught in 55 rivers, 432 lakes, and the Great
Lake's shoreline because the fish are contaminated with mercury, PCB's, and dioxin. Minnesota has also
lost more than 40% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Minnesota to receive grants
to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Nonpoint sources generate most of the pollution in Minnesota's rivers and lakes. Lakes are impacted
primarily by agricultural runoff and pollutants from the air. However, municipal sewage treatment plants
still impact 12% of Minnesota's total lake acres. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Minnesota to
continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff and finance municipal wastewater treatment.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOsl
Two cities in Minnesota are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. The
State has issued permits to over 2,400 industries and construction activities.

Minnesota has identified about 5 communities in need of CSO controls. The Initiative will give them the
flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various options in selecting final CSO
controls.

-------
MISSISSIPPI
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAY 1994

State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Mississippi has received more than $85 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than
1,910 jobs in the state. In 1992, Mississippi reported that it still needed $658 million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Mississippi would receive $118 million, creating over 2,655 jobs.
Mississippi stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 90% of Mississippi's assessed rivers, 35% of their assessed lakes, 26% of their
assessed estuaries, and 88% of their assessed ocean shoreline are not always suitable for basic uses, such
as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.

Agriculture remains the major source of pollution in Mississippi's rivers and lakes, affecting 91% of the
State's impaired rivers and all of their impaired lake acres. Urban runoff and storm sewers are the leading
source of impairment in Mississippi's estuarine waters. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow
Mississippi to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff. Mississippi has also lost more than
55% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure that the state continues to receive
grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Storm Water

One city in Mississippi is required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. The State
has issued permits to over 1760 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Mississippi to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
MISSOURI
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Missouri has received more than $217 million in grants, almost 2.5% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of
growth and development--and has created more than 4,800 jobs in the state. In 1992, Missouri reported
that it still needed $1.4 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Missouri would receive $365 million, creating over 8,000 jobs. Missouri
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 47% of Missouri's assessed rivers and 12% of their assessed lalces are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Siltation,
habitat alteration, and water loss cause most impairments in rivers and streams. Channelization has
degraded aquatic life habitat in 17% of Missouri's streams and the State does not have a program to
prevent additional projects to straighten streams. Agriculture is the predominant source of river
impairments. Pesticides from agricultural activities cause 99% of the lake impairments in the State.
Urban runoff and hydrologic/habitat modification also impair lakes. Missouri has also lost more than 85%
of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Missouri to receive grants to help implement its
State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls with municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality
standards within 3 years. The Clinton Initiative would allow Missouri to continue to focus on high-
priority discharges by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water
quality standards to 10 years.
Missouri has identified 14 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will give
them the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts in selecting CSOrControls.

-------
MONTANA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Montana has received more than $28 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than
645 jobs in the state. In 1992, Montana reported that it still needed $65 million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Montana would receive $65 million, creating over 1,445 jobs. Montana
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 21% of Montana's assessed rivers and 48% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Montana
has also lost more than 25% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Montana to receive
grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Agriculture is the leading source of impairment in Montana's rivers and lakes, impacting 58% of
Montana's impaired stream miles and 67% of the State's impaired lake acres. Clean Water Act
reauthorization will allow Montana to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water

Montana has issued permits to over 620 industries and construction activities. Under the current Act,
smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water controls. The
Clinton Initiative would allow Montana to continue to focus on high-priority discharges by continuing to
exempt small sources.

-------
NEBRASKA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Nebraska has received more than $40 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of growth and development—and has created more than
902 jobs in the state. In 1992, Nebraska reported that it still needed $246 million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Nebraska would receive $67 million, creating over 1,508 jobs. Nebraska
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 72% of Nebraska's assessed rivers and lakes are not always suitable for basic uses,
such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Agriculture impacts 75% of
Nebraska's impaired stream miles, while municipal sewage treatment plants affect 31% of the State's
impaired lake acres. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Nebraska to continue to receive grants to
control polluted runoff and finance municipal wastewater treatment.

Nebraska has also lost 35% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Nebraska to receive
grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Storm Water

Two cities in Nebraska are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. The
. State has issued permits to over 720 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Nebraska to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
NEVADA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Nevada has received more than $38 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than
860 jobs in the state. In 1992, Nevada reported that it still needed $165 .million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Nevada would receive $64 million, creating over 1,447 jobs. Nevada
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 76% of Nevada's assessed rivers and 38% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.
Agriculture is the leading source of impairment in Nevada's rivers and lakes - agriculture impacts 78% of
Nevada's impaired stream miles and all of the State's impaired lake acres. Clean Water Act
reauthorization will allow Nevada to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Nevada has also lost more than 50% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Nevada to
receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Storm Water

Nevada has designated 5 cities and 2 counties as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems
and have issued permits to over 725 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Nevada to continue to focus on high-priority discharges
by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, New Hampshire has received more than $60 million in grants. This money has been used to
help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of growth and development—and has created more
than 1,346 jobs in the state. In 1992, New Hampshire reported that it still needed $856 million for
improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, New Hampshire would receive $131 million, creating over 2,946 jobs.
New Hampshire stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.
Water Quality

State data shows that 2% of New Hampshire's assessed rivers, 9% of their assessed lakes, and 66% of
their assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing
healthy habitat for aquatic life.

Municipal sewage treatment plants are the most commonly identified source of pollution in New
Hampshire's surface waters, affecting 11% of New Hampshire's impaired river miles, 27% of impaired
lake acres, and 26% of impaired estuarine waters. However, the sources of most pollutants in New
Hampshire's surface waters remain unknown.

EPA Region I, working with New Hampshire, has issued permits to over 325 industries and construction
activities. Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be
subject to storm water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow New Hampshire to continue to focus
on high-priority discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

New Hampshire has identified about 11 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's
Initiative will give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of
various options in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
NEW JERSEY
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, New Jersey has received more than $446 million in grants, over 5% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 10,000 jobs in the state. In 1992, New Jersey
reported that it still needed $4.8 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, New Jersey would receive over $537 million, creating over 12,046 jobs.
New Jersey stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 27% of New Jersey's assessed rivers, 28% of their assessed estuaries, and 27% of
their assessed ocean shoreline are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or
providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. People cannot safely eat fish caught in 21 waterbodies because
the fish are contaminated with PCB's, chlordane, and dioxin.

New Jersey has also lost more than 35% of its historic wetlands base. EPA recently approved New
Jersey's assumption of the Section 404 permit program, and reauthorization will allow the state to receive
grants to help operate the program.

New Jersey reports that nonpoint sources, including stormwater outfalls, construction sites, urban runoff,
and agricultural runoff, are the principal sources of contaminants in surface waters. Clean Water Act
reauthorization will allow New Jersey to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water
New Jersey has issued permits to over 2,500 industries and construction activities. Under the current Act,
smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water controls. The
Clinton Initiative would allow New Jersey to continue to focus on high-priority discharges by continuing to
exempt small sources.

New Jersey has identified about 16 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative
will give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various
options in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
NEW MEXICO
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, New Mexico has received more than $50 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure~a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than
1,129 jobs in the state. In 1992, New Mexico reported that it still needed $123 million for improving
water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, New Mexico would receive over $64 million, creating more than 1,447
jobs. New Mexico stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 90% of New Mexico's assessed rivers and 91 % of their assessed lakes are not
always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.
People cannot safely eat fish caught in 3 river segments and 24 lakes because the fish are contaminated
with mercury.

Agriculture impairs more stream miles and lake acres than any other identified source - agriculture affects
90% of New Mexico's impaired stream miles and 78% of their impaired lake acres. Clean Water Act
reauthorization will allow New Mexico to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff. New
Mexico has also lost more than 30% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure that
the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

The Administration also proposes to further reduce polluted runoff by setting clear performance goals and
allowing flexible measures to achieve those goals. They are committed to an approach that will achieve
water quality goals while allowing enough time (10 years) to fully implement good management practices.

Storm Water

EPA Region VI, working with New Mexico, has designated 1 city as needing permits for the municipal
storm sewer systems and have issued permits to over 550 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow New Mexico to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
NEW YORK
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, New York has received more than $864 million in grants, more than 10% of the national total
of $8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure~a necessary part of
growth and development~and has created more than 19,000 jobs in the state. In 1992, New York
reported that it still needed $23 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, New York would receive $1.45 billion, creating over 32,000 jobs. New
York stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 6% of New York's assessed rivers, 56% of the assessed lakes, and 85% of the
estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses like fishing and swimming. Sediment contamination is a
long term problem and the public cannot safely eat fish from 54 sites because they are contaminated.
Agriculture and hydrologic/habitat modifications are the major sources of water quality impairment.

Urban runoff is the major nonpoint source of impairment in New York's bays and estuaries. Pathogen
indicators from all sources caused closure of 200,000 acres (16%) of the shellfish beds in the New York
City-Long Island region. Reauthorization will ensure that New York continues to receive grants to control
polluted runoff from urban and agricultural sources.

The Clinton Administration proposes to further reduce polluted runoff by setting clear performance goals
and allowing flexible measures to achieve those goals. The Administration is committed to an approach
that will achieve water quality goals while allowing enough time (10 years) to fully implement good
management practices.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's)
Five cities in New York are required to be issued permits for municipal storm sewer systems. The state
has issued permits to almost 880 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls with municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality
standards within 3 years. The Clinton Initiative would allow New York to continue to focus on high-
priority discharges by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water
quality standards to 10 years.
New York has identified about 80 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative
will give them the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts in selecting controls.

-------
NORTH CAROLINA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, North Carolina has received more than $164 million in grants. This money has been used to
help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more
than 3,685 jobs in the state. In 1992, North Carolina reported it they still needed $4 billion for improving
water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, North Carolina would receive over $237 million, creating over 5,320 jobs.
North Carolina stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 29% of North Carolina's assessed rivers, 9% of their assessed lakes, 9% of their
assessed estuaries, and 49% of their assessed wetlands are not always suitable for basic uses, such as
fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.

Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in North Carolina's rivers and streams (affecting 56% of the
impaired stream miles), while municipal sewage treatment plants are the leading source of contamination
in lakes (affecting 63% of the impaired lake acres). Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow North
Carolina to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff and finance municipal wastewater
treatment. North Carolina has also lost more than 45% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization
would help ensure that the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

The Clinton Administration also proposes to further reduce polluted runoff by setting clear performance
goals and allowing flexible measures to achieve those goals. They are committed to an approach that will
achieve water quality goals while allowing enough time (10 years) to fully implement good management
practices.

Storm Water

North Carolina has designated 6 cities and 1 county as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer
systems and have issued permits to over 1,300 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow North Carolina to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources. Also under the current Clean Water Act, municipal
storm water dischargers must achieve compliance with water quality standards within 3 years. The
Initiative recognizes the economic burden this may have and extends the requirement to meet water quality
standards to 10 years.

-------
NORTH DAKOTA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, North Dakota has received more than $28 million in grants. This money has been used to
help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more
than 649 jobs in the state. In 1992, North Dakota reported that it still needed $38 million for improving
water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, North Dakota would receive over $64 million, creating over 1,447 jobs.
North Dakota stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 25% of North Dakota's assessed rivers and 62% of their assessed lakes are not
always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.
Agriculture remains the leading source of impairment in North Dakota's rivers, affecting all of North
Dakota's impaired stream miles. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow North Dakota to continue to
receive grants to control polluted runoff. North Dakota has also lost more than 45% of its historic
wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow North Dakota to receive grants to help implement its State
Wetland Conservation Plan.

Storm Water

North Dakota has issued permits to over 645 industries and construction activities. Under the current Act,
smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water controls. The
Clinton Initiative would allow North Dakota to continue to focus on high-priority discharges by continuing
to exempt small sources.

-------
OHIO
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Ohio has received more than $455 million in grants, almost 5% of the national total of $8.5
billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth
and development-and has created more than 10,000 jobs in the state. In 1992, Ohio reported that it still
needed $5.1 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Ohio would receive $740 million, creating over 16,500 jobs. Ohio stands
to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 60% of Ohio's assessed rivers and 92% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Point
sources are the leading source of pollutants impairing rivers and agriculture is the leading source of
impairment of Ohio's lakes. Ohio has also lost 90% of its historic wetlands base, the second highest
percentage of all the states. Reauthorization will allow Ohio to receive grants to help implement its State
Wetland Conservation Plan.

People cannot safely eat fish caught in 15 river segments, 3 lakes, and along the Great Lakes shoreline
because the fish are contaminated with PCB's and chlordane.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Six cities in Ohio are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. The State has
issued permits to over 3,600 industries and construction activities.

Ohio has identified about 115 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various options
in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
OKLAHOMA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Oklahoma has received more than $72 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure~a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than
1,620 jobs in the state. In 1992, Oklahoma reported that it still needed $463 million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Oklahoma would receive $106 million, creating over 2,380 jobs.
Oklahoma stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 42% of Oklahoma's assessed rivers and 46% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. Oklahoma
has also lost more than 65% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Oklahoma to receive
grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Agriculture, including crop production and rangeland, is the primary source of water pollution in
Oklahoma, affecting all of Oklahoma's impaired river miles and lake acres. Clean Water Act
reauthorization will allow Oklahoma to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water
EPA Region VI, working with Oklahoma, has designated 2 cities as needing permits for the municipal
storm sewer systems and have issued permits to over 2,300 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Oklahoma to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
OREGON
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Oregon has received more than $88 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of growth and development—and has created more than
1,980 jobs in the state. In 1992, Oregon reported that it still needed $1.4 billion for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Oregon would receive $148 million, creating over 3,330 jobs. Oregon
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 57% of Oregon's assessed rivers, 26% of their assessed lakes, and 94% of their
assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy
habitat for aquatic life. Oregon has also lost more than 35% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization
will allow Oregon to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in Oregon's surface waters, affecting 57% of Oregon's
impaired river miles, 75% of the impaired lake acres, and 93% of the impaired estuarine waters.
Municipal sewage treatment plants also affect 93% of Oregon's impaired estuarine waters. Clean Water
Act reauthorization will allow Oregon to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff and finance
municipal wastewater treatment.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Oregon has been a leader in reducing the water quality impacts of storm water discharges. They have
designated 26 cities and 3 counties as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems and have
issued permits to over 1,040 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls wirn municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality
standards within 3 years. The Clinton Initiative would allow Oregon to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water quality
standards to 10 years.

Oregon has identified about 5 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various options
in selecting controls.

-------
PENNSYLVANIA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Pennsylvania has received more than $311 million in grants, almost 3.6% of the national total
of $8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 6,980 jobs in the state. In 1992, Pennsylvania
reported that it still needed $3.1 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Pennsylvania would receive $521 million, creating over 11,600 jobs. The
state stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 19% of Pennsylvania's assessed rivers are not always suitable for basic uses, such as
fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. The public cannot safely eat unlimited
quantities of fish caught at 28 sites because the fish are contaminated with chlordane, PCBs, dioxin, and
mercury. Pennsylvania has also lost more than 55% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would
help ensure that the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Abandoned mine drainage is the leading source of water quality contamination in Pennsylvania - mine
drainage affects 56% of the State's impaired stream miles. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow
Pennsylvania to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

The Clinton Administration also proposes to further reduce polluted runoff by setting clear performance
goals and allowing flexible measures to achieve those goals. The Administration is committed to an
approach that will achieve water quality goals while allowing enough time (10 years) to fully implement
good management practices.
Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
The
Two cities in Pennsylvania are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems.
State has issued permits to over 2,900 industries and construction activities. Under the current Act,
smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water controls with
municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality standards within 3
years. The Clinton Initiative would allow Pennsylvania to continue to focus on high-priority discharges by
continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water quality standards to
10 years.

Pennsylvania has identified about 138 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative
will give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various
options in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
RHODE ISLAND
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Rhode Island has received more than $53 million in grants. This money has been used to
help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more
than 1,180 jobs in the state. In 1992, Rhode Island reported that it still needed $938 million for
improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Rhode Island would receive $88 million, creating over 1,975 jobs. Rhode
Island stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 27% of Rhode Island's assessed rivers, 21% of their assessed lakes, and 20% of
their assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing
healthy habitat for aquatic life. Urban runoff and storm sewers are the leading source of impairment in
Rhode Island's surface waters - urban runoff and storm sewers affect 84% of the State's impaired stream
miles and 87% of the State's impaired estuarine waters. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow
Rhode Island to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff. Rhode Island has also lost more
than 35% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure that the state continues to
receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

Rhode Island has issued permits to over 175 industries and construction activities. Under the current Act,
smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water controls. The
Clinton Initiative would allow Rhode Island to continue to focus on high-priority discharges by continuing
to exempt small sources.

Rhode Island has identified about 3 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative
will give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various
options in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, South Carolina has received more than $105 million in grants. This money has been used to
help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more
than 2,365 jobs in the state. In 1992, South Carolina reported that it still needed $678 million for
improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, South Carolina would receive $134 million, creating over 3,020 jobs.
South Carolina stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 28% of South Carolina's assessed rivers, 20% of their assessed lakes, and 27% of
their assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing
healthy habitat for aquatic life. South Carolina has also lost more than 25% of its historic wetlands base.
Reauthorization would help ensure that the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection
programs.

Agriculture is the leading known source of water pollution in South Carolina's rivers and lakes. Urban
runoff/storm sewers have the greatest known affect on South Carolina's estuaries. Clean Water Act
reauthorization will allow South Carolina to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water

Two counties in South Carolina are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems.
The State has issued permits to over 1,400 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow South Carolina to continue to focus on high-priority
discharges by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, South Dakota has received more than $38 million in grants. This money has been used to
help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development—and has created more
than 860 jobs in the state. In 1992, South Dakota reported that it still needed $109 million for improving
water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, South Dakota would receive $64 million, creating over 1,445 jobs. South
Dakota stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 83% of South Dakota's assessed rivers and 19% of their assessed lakes are not
always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.
South Dakota has also lost more than 30% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow South
Dakota to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Agricultural nonpoint sources and livestock operations are the leading source of water pollution in South
Dakota - agriculture affects all of the State's impaired river miles and 32% of their impaired lake acres.
Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow South Dakota to continue to receive grants to control polluted
runoff.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

One city in South Dakota is required to be issued a permit for the municipal storm sewer systems. The
State has issued permits to over 460 industries and construction activities.

South Dakota has identified about 16 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative
will give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various
options in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
TENNESSEE
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
J.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Tennessee has received more than $162 million in grants, almost 2% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 3,640 jobs in the state. In 1992, Tennessee reported
that it still needed $1.8 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Tennessee would receive $191 million, creating over 4,280 jobs.
Tennessee stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 36% of Tennessee's assessed rivers and 21% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. The
public cannot safely eat unlimited quantities of fish caught at 19 sites because the fish are contaminated
with PCBs, chlordane, mercury, and dioxin. Tennessee has also lost more than 55% of its historic
wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Tennessee to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland
Conservation Plan.

Agriculture, hydromodification, and development are the principal sources of river pollution in Tennessee.
In-place contaminants (often deposited by discontinued discharges) are the single largest source of lake
impairments. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Tennessee to continue to receive grants to
control polluted runoff.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Tennessee has designated 13 cities as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems and has
issued permits to over 2,250 industries and construction activities.

Tennessee has identified about 7 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various options
in selecting controls.

-------
TEXAS
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Texas has received more than $551 million in grants, nearly 6.5% of the national total of $8.5
billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure--a necessary part of growth
and development-and has created more than 12,300 jobs in the state. In 1992, Texas reported that it still
needed over $4.6 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Texas would receive over $600 million, creating over 13,000 jobs. Texas
stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 27% of Texas' assessed rivers and 11% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses like fishing and swimming or providing habitat for aquatic life. People cannot
safely eat fish caught at 13 waterbodies because they are contaminated with pollutants like Dioxins,
Chlordane, DDT, and Mercury from paper mills, chemical plants,, spills, and urban use.

Domestic wastewater is the leading source of contamination in Texas' rivers and streams. Natural sources
and municipal treatment plants are the leading sources of pollutants to lakes and industrial/municipal
discharges are the leading source of contaminants to coastal bays. Texas has also lost more than 50% of
its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will ensure that the state continues to receive grants to protect
coastal wetlands and initiate statewide wetland protection efforts.

Reauthorization will allow Texas to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff from urban and
rural sources. The Administration proposes to further reduce polluted runoff by setting clear performance
goals and allowing states flexible measures to achieve those goals. The Administration is committed to an
approach that will achieve water quality goals while allowing enough time (10 years) to fully implement
good management practices.

Storm Water

EPA Region VI, working with Texas, has designated 19 cities and 1 county as needing permits for the
municipal storm sewer systems and has issued permits to over 10,400 industries and construction
activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls and all discharges would be required to achieve compliance with water quality standards
within 3 years. The Clinton Initiative would allow Texas to continue to focus on high-priority discharges
by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water quality standards
to 10 years.

-------
UTAH
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Utah has received more than $44 million in grants. This money has been used to help build
waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of growth and development—and has created more than 985
jobs in the state. In 1992, Utah reported that it still needed $230 million for improving water pollution
control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Utah would receive $69 million, creating over 1,553 jobs. Utah stands to
lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 43% of Utah's assessed rivers and 39% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.
Agriculture, including irrigated crop production and grazing, is the leading source of surface water
pollution, affecting 94% of Utah's impaired lake acres and 35% of Utah's impaired river miles. Clean
Water Act reauthorization will allow Utah to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff. Utah
has also lost more than 25% of its wetlands historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow Utah to
receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Storm Water

One city and one county in Utah are required to be issued permits for their municipal storm sewer
systems. The State has issued permits to over 330 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Utah to continue to focus on high-priority discharges
by continuing to exempt small sources.

-------
VERMONT
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Vermont has received more than $39 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than
889 jobs in the state. In 1992, Vermont reported that it still needed $163 million for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Vermont would receive over $64 million, creating over 1,447 jobs.
Vermont stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data indicate that 19% of Vermont's assessed rivers, all of Lake Champlain, and 30% of Vermont's
other assessed lakes are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing
healthy habitat for aquatic life. All of Lake Champlain is affected by a fish consumption advisory - people
cannot safely eat fish caught in Lake Champlain because of high concentrations of PCBs, mercury, and
other toxic pollutants in the fish. Vermont has also lost more than 30% of its historic wetlands base.
Reauthorization will allow Vermont to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation
Plan.

Agriculture continues to impair the greatest number of river miles - all of Vermont's impaired river miles
are affected by agriculture. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Vermont to continue to receive
grants to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Vermont to focus on high-priority discharges by
continuing to exempt small sources.

Vermont has identified about 35 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give these communities the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts of various options
in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
VIRGINIA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Virginia has received nearly $270 million in grants, almost 3% of the national total of $8.5
billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of growth
and development--and has created more than 5,600 jobs in the state. In 1992, Virginia reported that it still
needed $3.4 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Virginia would receive nearly $270 million, creating over 6,000 jobs.
Virginia stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 20% of Virginia's assessed rivers, 7% of their assessed lakes, and 22% of their
assessed estuaries cannot be used all year for basic uses like fishing and swimming. People cannot safely
eat fish caught in 8 areas in Virginia because the fish are contaminated with pollutants like Mercury,
PCB's, and dioxin. Virginia has also lost more than 40% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization
will allow the state to continue to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Agricultural runoff is the most common water quality problem in Virginia's impaired rivers and lakes.
Reauthorization will ensure that Virginia continues to receive grants to control polluted runoff. The
Clinton Administration also proposes to further reduce polluted runoff by setting clear performance goals
and allowing flexible measures to achieve those goals. The Administration is committed to an approach
that will achieve water quality goals while allowing enough time (10 years) to fully implement good
management practices.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's)
Virginia has designated 7 cities and 5 counties as needing permits for the municipal storm sewer systems
and has issued permits to over 2,000 industries and construction activities. Under the current Act, smaller
mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water controls. The Clinton
Initiative would allow Virginia to continue to focus on high-priority discharges by continuing to exempt
these small sources.

Under the current Clean Water Act, municipal storm water dischargers must achieve compliance with
water quality standards within 3 years. The Initiative recognizes the economic burden this may have and
extends the requirement to meet water quality standards to 10 years.
Virginia has identified about 12 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative will
give them the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts in selecting final CSO controls.

-------
WASHINGTON
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
I.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Washington has received more than $137 million in grants, almost 2% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 3000 jobs in the state. In 1992, Washington reported
that it still needed $3 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Washington would receive $228 million, creating over 5000 jobs.
Washington stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data indicate that 65% of Washington's assessed rivers, 49% of their assessed lakes, and 63% of
their assessed estuaries are not always suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing
healthy habitat for aquatic life. Agriculture is the most common source of water quality degradation in
rivers and lakes, affecting 56% of the impaired river miles and 42% of the impaired lake acres. Industrial
point sources and hydrologic/habitat modification (such as channelization) also impair more than 1,000
stream miles in Washington. Over 10,000 lake acres are also impaired by urban runoff and storm sewers,
while almost 9,000 lake acres are impaired by septic systems.

Washington has also lost more than 30% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization will allow
Washington to receive grants to help implement its State Wetland Conservation Plan.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Two cities and three counties in Washington are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm
sewer systems. The state issued permits to over 1,400 industries and construction activities.

Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls with municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality
standards within 3 years. The Clinton Initiative would allow Washington to continue to focus on high-
priority discharges by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water
quality standards to 10 years.
Washington has identified about 44 communities in need of CSO controls. President Clinton's Initiative
will give them the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts in selecting controls.

-------
WEST VIRGINIA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, West Virginia has received more than $92 million in grants, about 1% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of
growth and development~and has created nearly 2,000 jobs in the state. In 1992, West Virginia reported
that it still needed $1.2 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, West Virginia would receive $205 million, creating nearly 4,800 jobs.
West Virginia stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 79% of West Virginia's assessed rivers and 65% of the assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses like fishing, swimming, and providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. People
cannot safely eat fish caught in 7 areas because the fish are contaminated with PCB's, chlordane, and
dioxin, much of which comes from polluted runoff. Coal mining affects 81% of the impaired river miles
and 85% of the impaired lake waters. Clean Water Act reauthorization will ensure that West Virginia will
continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

West Virginia has lost 24% of its historic wetlands base over the years. Reauthorization will ensure that
the state continues to receive grants for wetland identification and planning projects already underway.

Storm Water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's)
Under the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm
water controls with municipal storm water dischargers having to achieve compliance with water quality
. standards within 3 years. The Clinton Initiative would allow Washington to continue to focus on high-
priority discharges by continuing to exempt small sources and would extend the requirement to meet water
quality standards to 10 years.

West Virginia has identified about 86 communities in need of CSO controls. The President's Initiative
will give them the flexibility to consider environmental and economic impacts in selecting final CSO
controls.

-------
WISCONSIN
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization ?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Wisconsin has received more than $212 million in grants, almost 2.5% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of
growth and development--and has created more than 4,751 jobs in the state. In 1992, Wisconsin reported
that it still needed $1.1 billion for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Wisconsin would receive over $355 million, creating over 7,969 jobs.
Wisconsin stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality
State data shows that 17% of Wisconsin's assessed rivers and 58% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life. The
public cannot safely eat unlimited quantities of fish caught at 71 river segments, 170 lakes, and the entire
Great Lakes shoreline because the fish are contaminated with mercury, PCBs, chlordane, and dioxin.
Wisconsin has also lost more than 45% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure
that the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in Wisconsin's rivers - agriculture affects all of the State's
impaired river miles. Clean Water Act reauthorization will allow Wisconsin to continue to receive grants
to control polluted runoff.

Storm Water
Two cities in Wisconsin are required to be issued permits for the municipal storm sewer systems. Under
the current Act, smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water
controls. The Clinton Initiative would allow Wisconsin to focus on high-priority discharges by continuing
to exempt small sources.

-------
WYOMING
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund

Since 1988, Wyoming has received more than $31 million in grants. This money has been used to help
build waste water infrastructure-a necessary part of growth and development-and has created more than
710 jobs in the state. In 1992, Wyoming reported that it still needed $1.4 billion for improving water
pollution control infrastructure statewide.

President Clinton's Initiative recommends capital funding of $13 billion over the next ten years. Under
the current allocation formula, Wyoming would receive $over $64 million, creating over 1,447 jobs.
Wyoming stands to lose these funds if the Clean Water Act is not reauthorized.

Water Quality

State data shows that 67% of Wyoming's assessed rivers and 73% of their assessed lakes are not always
suitable for basic uses, such as fishing, swimming, or providing healthy habitat for aquatic life.
Agriculture, including rangeland, is the leading source of pollution in Wyoming's surface waters -
agriculture affects 61% of Wyoming's impaired river miles and 69% of their impaired lake acres. Clean
Water Act reauthorization will allow Wyoming to continue to receive grants to control polluted runoff.

Wyoming has also lost more than 35% of its historic wetlands base. Reauthorization would help ensure
that the state continues to receive grants to develop wetlands protection programs.

Storm Water

Wyoming has issued permits to over 700 industries and construction activities. Under the current Act,
smaller mom-and-pop businesses, as well as small towns, could be subject to storm water controls. The
Clinton Initiative would allow Wyoming to continue to focus on high-priority discharges by continuing to
exempt small sources.

-------
ALABAMA
What's at stake in
Clean Water Act
Reauthorization?
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1994
State Revolving Fund
Since 1988, Alabama has received more than $87 million in grants, more than 1% of the national total of
$8.5 billion. This money has been used to help build waste water infrastructure—a necessary part of
growth and development-and has created more than 1960 jobs in the state. In 1992, Alabama reported
that it still needed $848 million for improving water pollution control infrastructure statewide.

-------
Side-by-side
  Analysis

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                       THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Member of Congress:

     A new Clean Water Act will  create  jobs  and keep the nation's
communities healthy and thriving.   The  reauthorization provides
us with a tremendous opportunity to help all Americans by
reducing pollution, encouraging  new infrastructure investment,
and by providing new flexibility to our state and local
governmental partners.

     This "Clean Water Reference Book"  will  provide  you and your
staff with detailed information  about President Clinton's Clean
Water Initiative and the major bills now moving through Congress.
In this notebook, you will find:

  *  facts and figures about how the new law will affect your
     state;

  *  information about the value of clean water to the nation's
     economy; and,

  *  a side-by-side comparison of the major  bills in Congress.

     In early February, I presented you with the President's
Clean Water Initiative, a 150-page  document  outlining a number  of
ways to reduce pollution and streamline regulatory procedures.
If enacted, it would save the nation about $27  billion each year
when compared to the cost of implementing the current law.   The
Initiative also will reduce pollution sharply,  particularly from
diffuse sources such as city streets and farmland.   This diffuse
form of pollution -- called "polluted runoff"  --  is  by far  the
biggest remaining threat to the  nation's waters,  according  to
recent information from the States.

     President Clinton proposes  to  extend the State  Revolving
Loan Fund program into the next  century,  providing over $13
billion in federal funds to the  nation's communities over the
next ten years.  These funds will be invested in water pollution
control infrastructure such as the  construction of sewage
treatment plants, sewers, and stormwater control  systems.   The
authorization for these funds expires this year,  underscoring the
need for prompt congressional action.
                                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
     I hope you find the information in this Reference Book
useful as you consider the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act.  If I can be of any assistance to you in coming months,
please do not hesitate to contact me.   I stand ready to work with
you and your colleagues to achieve our shared environmental
goals.
                                   Sine
                                   Carol M. Browner

-------
                  COMPARISON OF
PRESIDENTS CLEAN WATER INITIATIVE, S. 2093 AND H.R. 3948
AREA                                      PAGE

POLLUTED RUNOFF                           1

WATERSHED PROVISIONS                       2

INFRASTRUCTURE                            3

TOXIC CHEMICALS                            5

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND CRITERIA       5

PERMITTING                                 8

GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER          10

ENFORCEMENT                               H

WETLANDS                                  12

-------
COMPARISON OF
PRESIDENTS CLEAN WATER INITIATIVE, S. 2093 AND H.R. 3948
PROVISION
PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
S. 2093
H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
POLLUTED RUNOFF
State Programs
Within 30 months of enactment, States are to
revise current State management programs so
thai they are based on management measures
published by EPA and include means to enforce
adoption of these measures when preferable
voluntary efforts are not successful.

Management measures are to be implemented
for all existing sources of pollution in watersheds
with impaired or threatened waters and, to
prevent pollution, for all new sources in all
watersheds. The measures are to consider costs,
pollution, and risk reductions achievable, and
would allow for local tailoring.

Management measures are to be implemented
within 7'/i years of enactment and State water
quality standards are to be met within \2Yt years
of enactment.

Slates must have, at a minimum, the ability to
seek injunclive relief and civil penalties.

EPA is to establish minimum controls if States
do not have an approved program. EPA is also
to have backup enforcement authority after
giving notice to States and responsible parties
when Stales fail to take action. Limited authority
is provided for citizens to petition EPA to take
enforcement action where Stales fail to act.
(pp. 37-39)
Within 30 months of enactment, States are to
revise current Slate management programs so
that they are consistent with EPA national
program guidance; include annual milestones for
implementing either management measures or
site-specific plans; and include State enforcement
authority.

Management measures or site-specific plans are
to be implemented for all existing sources in all
watersheds; management measures are to be
implemented for new sources only in impaired
waters. Nationally developed measures must
reflect best available practices and be
economically achievable.

Management measures or plans are to be
implemented within 3 years of State program
approval; water quality standards are to met
within 10 years of State program approval.

States must have, at a minimum, legal authority
to seek injunclive relief.

EPA is to establish controls if States do not have
an approved program, and beginning in 1998, is
to withhold nonpoint source grant funds. No
Federal backup enforcement or citizen suit
authority is proposed. (Sec. 302)
Within 18 months of enactment, Slates are to
revise current State management programs so
that they are based on management measures
published by EPA and include State
enforceable mechanisms.

Management measures are to apply only to
land owners and categories selected by a State.
Site-specific plans would be allowed. Measures
are to be based on best management practices
which reflect regional variation, best available
practices, and be economically achievable.
Slates are to have unlimited authority to
exempt any nonpoint sources or source
categories.

Management measures and site-specific plans
are lo be implemented within 5-9 years from
enactment and State water quality standards
are to be met by the end of 2009.

States must have enforceable mechanisms and
policies.

EPA is to prepare a management program if a
Slate fails to develop an approvable program,
but is not provided authority to implement the
program or to have Federal backup
enforcement authority. No citizen suit
authority is provided. (Sec. 312(b) & (c))

-------
-2-
PROVISION
PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
S. 2093
H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
Funding
Federal Stale grant funding to be $100 million in
each of FYs 1995 -1998. (p. 43)
Federal State grant funding to be $300 to $600
million in each of FYs 1995 - 1998. Individuals
would be eligible to receive up to $10,000
annually to help implement required nonpoint
source controls. (Sec. 302(h))
Federal grant funding to be $250 to $500
million in each of FYs 1995 - 2000.
(Sec. 312(0)
WATERSHED PROVISIONS
State Programs
Encourages a comprehensive State program
approach whereby Slates are to delineate all
watersheds within the Slate based on USGS
hydrologic units, select priorily watersheds, and
establish a schedule for achieving environmental
objectives in all watersheds.

All priority watersheds are to have management
plans in place within 10 years of enactment, and
all waters are to meet environmental objectives,
including water quality standards, within 15 years.

Provides incentives for the watershed approach.
Slates with approved watershed programs would
be eligible for multi-purpose grants that would
consolidate available water grants into one grant
that could be flexibly targeted towards greatest
Slate needs. NPDES permit terms may be
extended for one time to align the timing of
permits within a watershed. States would also be
allowed more flexibility in tailoring nonpoint
source controls and would have an exiended
deadline of meeting environmental goals and
water quality standards of no later than 15 years
from enactment. EPA would also conduct a
study to assess trading opportunities within a
watershed to promote more efficient use of
resources, (pp. 50-56, 61-65, 67)
No comprehensive State program authorized.
Instead, the Governor of a State may submit a
watershed management plan including as many
watershed management units as the State
chooses.

No deadlines for development of watershed plans,
but impaired waters are to meet water quality
standards no later than 10 years after plan
submitlal or, if impairment is due to point
sources, no later than 5 years.

Provides several incentives. Projects and
activiiies identified in a watershed plan are
eligible for assistance under the State's Revolving
Loan Fund program. Point sources may have
prospective relief from potential requirements if
the watershed plan includes enforceable
requirements to assure that nonpoint source
pollutant reductions will occur. Permit terms
may be exiended one time to align the timing of
permits within a watershed. States may use
watershed plans to identify nonpoint sources that
do not affect water quality and may exempt these
sources from control requirements. (Sec. 303)
Provides for a comprehensive State watershed
program similar to the President's Initiative.

Sets no deadlines for development of
watershed plans, but provides that water
quality standards be met in all watersheds by
2009 (15 years).

As incentives, allows States to design plans to
achieve pollution reductions by trading
between point and nonpoint sources of
pollution and to review water quality standards
every 5 years instead of every 3 years. Does
not include incentive of prospective relief.
(Sec. 315)

-------
                                                                                    -3-
        PROVISION
                                                                                                          H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
                                                                           INFRASTRUCTURE
Slate Revolving Loan Fund
(SRF) Authorization
Provides Federal capitalization grants of $2
billion through FY 1998, with subsequently
phased down annual amounts through and
including FY 2004, for a total of $13 billion
dollars.   Based on the President's SRF Initiative,
this level of funding, combined with State
matching contributions, leveraging, and
repayments, would result in SRF loan activity of
approximately $2 billion annually,  (p.20)
Provides $2.5 billion annually FY 1995 - FY 2000
in capitalization grants (for a total of $15 billion
at a minimum). In any year when deficit
reduction goals are met, SRF grant funding
would be increased by additional incremental
amounts of $500 million beginning in FY 1996.
(FY 1996 - $500 million, FY 1997 - $1 billion,
FY 1998 - $1.5 billion etc.) (Sec. 101(j))
Provides $2.5 billion in FY 1994, and
incremental increases of $500 million through
FY 2000 (e.g., $3.0 billion in FY 1995, $3.5
billion in FY 1996, etc.) for total funding of
$28 billion. (Sec. 606)
Projects Eligible for SRF
Funding
Expands current eligibilities (POTW
construction; approved State nonpoint source
management plan  implementation; estuary
management plan  development and
implementation; and, with limitations, CSO
corrections, storm water controls and sewer
rehabilitation) to include: restoration and
protection of riparian areas in the context of a
publicly administered program (excluding land
purchase); initial capitalization of a wetlands
mitigation bank; development and
implementation of water use efficiency which
cost-effectively reduces the need for  expanded
wastewaier treatment capacity; development and
implementation of pollution prevention plans  for
public authorities, and unrestricted use of funds
for CSOs, storm water, and sewer rehabilitation.
(pp. 1-2)
Expands current eligibilities to include:  CSO and
storm water controls; implementation of water
use efficiency projects that are cost effective
alternatives to expanded wastewater treatment .
capacity; implementation of a lake protection
project under the  Clean Water Act Clean Lakes
program; where an approved watershed
management plan  exists, projects to carry out the
approved watershed plan, to implement a Great
Lakes Management Plan or Remedial Action
plans; to develop and implement pollution
prevention plans, and to construct an animal
waste management facility as included in an
approved Slate nonpoint source management
program; and construction of marine sanitation
pumping stations.   (Sec. 101 (a) & 804)
Expands current eligibilities to include water
use efficiency measures whose principal
purpose is to improve or protect water quality
(Sec. 601) and development of state watershed
management plans (Sec. 315(b)).

-------
                                                                                   -4-
        PROVISION
                                        PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
                                                                   S. 2093
                                                         H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
Disadvantaged Cbmmunilies
Allows States the option of providing special
subsidies to disadvantaged communities, as
defined by the States, to make the SRF loan
affordable.  Subsidies may include negative
interest rates, extending the loan repayment
period, loan forgiveness or others, but are not to
exceed in total the equivalent of a negative 2%
interest rate for a loan recipient.  Slates may use
up to 10% of their annual loan amounts for
these subsidies, (pp. 8-10)
Allows States the option of providing special
subsidies to disadvantaged communities, including
loan forgiveness and extended repayment periods,
that meet State determined affordability criteria.
The amount of a subsidy to one community may
not exceed $20 million and the total amount of
loan forgiveness may not exceed 20 percent of the
Federal capitalization grant. (Sec. 101(d))
Allows States to extend repayment period for a
hardship community or to charge a negative
interest rate to the extent necessary to ensure
that annual average residential sewage
treatment charges do not exceed 1.25% of
median household income considering any
extended repayment period. Bill defines
hardship communities as an area where
average annual residential sewage treatment
charges after a project's completion will exceed
1.25% of the service area's median household
income. (Sec. 603)
Permit Fees
                               Requires authorized Slates and Tribes to develop
                               and implement a fee system for the NPDES,
                               pretreatment, and sludge programs they
                               administer as well as for other surface water
                               programs which support these programs. Fees
                               are to cover 100% of the program costs not
                               funded through appropriated funds, program
                               grants, or other revenue sources.  Authorizes
                               EPA  to develop fee systems to cover the costs of
                               the NPDES, preirealment, and sludge programs
                               when States do not develop approvable programs
                               or when EPA is the regulatory authority, (p. 14)
                                                Stales have two years to modify NPDES, sludge,
                                                and pretreatment programs they administer to
                                                collect permit fees that would recover 60% of the
                                                costs of developing and administering the point
                                                source elements of their water quality programs,
                                                as well as sludge and pretrealment programs.
                                                EPA is to establish a Federal program for
                                                collecting fees to cover 100% of its costs of
                                                administering the NPDES, sludge, and
                                                pretreatment programs if a State fails to develop
                                                or collect the required fees and in Slates where
                                                EPA is the regulatory authority. (Sec. 501 (a))
                                                No provision.

-------
-5-
PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
TOXIC CHEMICALS
National Academy of Science
Study
Within 3 years of enactment, the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) is to complete a
study on (he current knowledge of chemicals (hat
exhibit endocrine, immune, and nervous system
health effects in humans and wildlife, including
documentation (hat (hey increase the incidence
of breast cancer. The study is also to include
recommendations for any appropriate actions for
reducing or prohibiting the production and/or use
of these chemicals, (p-23)
Within 3 years of enactment, the NAS is to
complete and EPA is to transmit to the Congress
a study on the effects of water pollution on the
development of aquatic life, wildlife and humans,
including impairments to reproductive, endocrine,
nervous, or immune systems. The study is also to
identify aquatic and wildlife species displaying
developmental effects, aquatic sites that are the
origin of the effects, and appropriate site
restoration or other measures to protect species
at risk of developmental effects. Within 4 years
of enactment, EPA is to publish, based on the
NAS study, a list of substances having
developmental effects and within 5 years of
enactment is to develop a national strategy to
reduce exposure to pollutants found by the NAS
to have developmental effects.
(Sec. 203(b) & (c))
Similar to the President's Initiative.
(Sec.308(h))
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Criteria Development
Within 2 years, and every 5 years thereafter,
EPA is to develop a comprehensive plan setting
priorities for criteria development. EPA is to
have the authority to specify types of criteria
(water quality, sediment, wildlife, etc.) and
pollutants based on risk, (p.25)
Within 2 years of enactment, and every S years
thereafter, EPA is to develop a comprehensive
plan setting priorities for criteria development.
The criteria development plan must specifically
address the need for new or revised criteria for
human health, aquatic life, sediment, nonpoint
sources, lakes, ground water, habitat, wildlife and
ambient biological criteria. The plan must also
provide for the publication of at least 8 sediment
criteria within 4 years. In addition, within 3 years
of enactment, EPA must publish criteria for the
highest risk nonpoint source pollutants.
(Sec. 202(a))
Requires development of criteria for nonpoint
sources within 3 years of enactment.
(Sec. 308(e))

-------
-6-
PROVISION
PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
S. 2093
H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
Water Quality Standards and
Criteria for Arid Areas
No provision needed as existing guidance
provides States with sufficient flexibility to adjust
the criteria based on site-specific criteria.
EPA is to convene a public workgroup which is
to recommend changes to EPA methodology for
developing water quality criteria for ephemeral
and effluent-dependent waters. The group is also
to develop a prioritized list of water quality
criteria that need to be developed or revised.
Within 18 months of enactment, EPA is to revise
its methodology based on the group's
recommendations. Withjn 3 years of enactment,
EPA is to publish at least two criteria documents
identified by the group and is to publish at least
two additional criteria annually until all criteria
on the group's list are addressed. (Sec. 608(b))
Within 2 years of enactment, EPA must
publish a guidance for the States on
development and adoption of water quality
standards applicable to arid areas.
(Sec. 305(a))
Antidegradation
The definition of a water quality standard should
include the Slate's antidegradation policy and
implementation methods.

Each State and Tribe is to develop a statewide
antidegradation policy and implementation
methods applicable to new and existing point and
nonpoim sources.

Under current procedures, waters are protected
to meet existing uses (as of November 1975) or
to meet very protective measures as Outstanding
National Resource Waters (ONRWs).
Recommends creation of additional special water
categories to provide States with more flexibility
to protect their waters from unacceptable
degradation without precluding development.

Ensures timely assessment of all waterbodies to
see if added levels of protection are necessary
(i.e., special protection or ONRWs), particularly
important waters for which there is a clear
Federal interest (e.g., national parks, national
wildlife refuges, etc.).
No provision for expanding the definition of
water quality standards.

Each Slate is to develop, for EPA approval, and
implement a Statewide antidegradation policy and
methods for its implementation. If a State fails
to develop an approvable policy within 3 years of
enactment, EPA is to promulgate the State
policy. Implementation of the policy must
protect existing uses (uses as of November 1975).
For waters exceeding fishable/swimmable quality,
water quality is to be maintained or protected
and new or expanded discharges may be allowed
only if: the discharge is necessary for important
economic or social development in the area;
existing uses are protected; all plants discharging
into (he waters directly or indirectly through
treatment plants meet all Clean Water Act
requirements; and all nonpoint sources affecting
the water are subject to enforceable best
management practices.
No provision for expanding the definition of
water quality standards.

Each State is to develop and submit to EPA
for approval a Statewide antidegradation
policy, including implementation methods,
within 2 years of enactment. If a Slate fails to
develop a policy, EPA will develop the Slate's
policy within 30 months of enactment.
Implementation of the policy must protect
existing uses (as of November 1975). For
waters exceeding fishable/swimmable quality,
the quality is to be maintained and protected
unless: allowing a reduction is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social
development in the area; the Stale notifies
EPA at least 30 days before the waiver is to go
into effect; existing uses are protected; all new
and existing plants discharging into the waters
directly or indirectly through treatment plants
meet all Clean Water Act requirements; and
all new and existing nonpoint sources affecting
the water are subject to Clean Water Act
requirements (not necessarily enforceable
measures). The policy is also to provide for
State watershed management or other
programs to protect ONRWs.

-------
                                                                                      -7-
        PROVISION
         PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
                    S. 2093
         H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
Anlidegradation com.
Presumptively applies a special protection level
for important Federal waters if States fail to
make a deliberate determination of whether to
provide these waters with added  protection.
Where States have not acted to protect
important Federal waters, authorize Federal
natural resource agencies to nominate waters for
special designation.  EPA, after opportunity for
Slate or Tribal consultation, must make a
determination within 2 years of nomination.

Allows EPA to challenge Stale and Tribal
designations, (pp. 32-33)
Within 2 years of enactment, Stales are to
implemeni programs lo identify and protect
ONRWs. ONRWs must include waters of
exceptional recreational or ecological significance
as well as all waters within a national park or
nalional wilderness area unless a Stale
demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that the
designation would  result in important social and
harm in the area and ihe Federal land manager
concurs.  EPA is to make ONRW designations if
a Stale fails to act within 4 years of enactment.
Bill has no provision for special protection
designations in addition lo ONRWs.

A State antidegradalion policy is lo allow any
cilizen of ihe State lo petition ihe Stale for Ihe
designalion of a particular water as an ONRW.

All permits for a new, expanded, or increased
point source discharge are to be reviewed  by the
permitting authority for conformance wilh the
State antidegradation policy. (Sec. 202(c))
Slates are lo evaluate for ONRW designation
(with no time frame) all waters within nalional
parks or national wilderness areas, and any
waters of exceptional recreational or ecological
significance.  A State may choose not to
designale Ihese waters as ONRWs if it
demonstrates lo EPA's satisfaction thai the
designalion would resull in important social
and economic harms and, for waters located in
Federal lands, the Federal land manager
concurs. Bill has no provision for special
protection designalions in addilion lo ONRWs.

A State antidegradation policy is to allow any
cilizen of the State lo petition ihe State for ihe
designalion of a particular waier as an ONRW.

All permits for a new or increased point
source discharge are lo be reviewed by ihe
permitting authority  for conformance wilh the
Slate antidegradation policy except for existing
dischargers proposing increases to an existing
effluent limitation or a new effluent limitation
for a  pollutant previously unaddressed in ihe
permit. (Sec. 303)

-------
                                                                                    -8-
        PROVISION
PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
S. 2093
H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
                                                                               PERMITTING
Storm Water
                               Focusscs on municipalities with separate storm
                               sewer systems located in a census designated
                               urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or
                               more.  (Current law requires that municipal
                               separate storm sewer systems serving a
                               population of 100,000 or more already have a
                               permit, and requires EPA to designate for
                               regulation additional storm water discharges to
                               protect water quality.  A moratorium on
                               requiring permits from municipalities with
                               populations of less than 100,000 and separate
                               storm sewer systems expires on October 1,  1994.)

                               Additional facilities (commercial, retail,
                               institutional, and light industrial) are not to be
                               directly regulated through NPDES permits unless
                               they cause or contribute to a water quality
                               problem.  (Current law requires permits for
                               storm water discharges from industrial facilities
                               and for additional storm water discharges as
                               needed to protect water quality. A moratorium
                               on requiring permits of non-municipal sources
                               expires October 1, 1994.)

                               Authorizes EPA to exempt completely covered
                               industrial  facilities (A Court case remanded EPA
                               efforts to exempt these facilities.)
                                       Focusses on municipalities with separate storm
                                       sewer systems located in a census designated
                                       urban area with a municipality covered by the
                                       current municipal storm water program, or a city
                                       with a population of 100,000 or more that has
                                       been previously exempted from the storm water
                                       program due to combined sewers. EPA required
                                       to list other municipal systems that discharge to
                                       impaired waters and to require a permit unless
                                       the municipality implements controls or the
                                       source cannot be controlled by the municipality.

                                       Storm water dischargers from commercial
                                       activities required to obtain a permit unless
                                       granted an EPA exemption based on finding that
                                       class of activities has minimal effect on water or
                                       sediment quality.  EPA also authorized to exempt
                                       light industry from storm water requirements.

                                       Industrial and commercial  facilities owned by a
                                       municipality may be addressed in a consolidated
                                       municipal permit.

                                       Municipal separate storm sewer permits have 10
                                       years to comply with water quality standards.

                                       Standard for municipal separate storm sewer
                                       system permits defined as management measures
                                       published under the Coastal Zone Act
                                       Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. (Sec. 402)
                             Similar to President's Initiative:  focusses
                             municipal storm sewer permitting requirements
                             on municipalities located in a census
                             designated urbanized area with a population of
                             50,000 or more.

                             Requires permits for storm water associated
                             with industrial activity except for any industrial
                             activity that is regulated by a State or local
                             storm water program and that is from a
                             construction activity thai disturbs less than 5
                             acres of land.  Allows EPA to exempt an
                             industrial storm water discharge from covered
                             facilities.

                             Additional facilities (commercial, retail,
                             institutional, and light industrial) not directly
                             regulated through NPDES permits unless
                             necessary to protect water quality.

                             Any storm water discharge exempt from
                             permitting requirements is subject to State
                             Nonpoint Source Management programs.

                             Municipal separate  storm sewer system permits
                             have until December 31, 2009 to comply with
                             water quality standards. (Sec. 402)

-------
                                                                                    -9-
        PROVISION
                                        PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
                                                                    S. 2093
                                                         H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
Storm Water cont.
Provides tiered and phased standards for permits
for municipal separate storm sewer systems.
First and second round permits for municipal
separate storm sewer systems do not have to
comply with water quality standards.
Municipalities new to the program would address
illicit connections and developing areas, and only
in limited cases be required to develop
comprehensive programs. (Current law requires
comprehensive programs for municipalities
subject to storm water program.)
Combined Sewer Overflows
Enacts the Combined Sewer Overflow Policy
developed by EPA in conjunction with
representatives from environmental organizations,
and State and city governments, (p. 123)
Requires each permit for a CSO discharge to
comply with the Combined Sewer Overflow
Policy. In addition, allows up to 15 years for
facilities to comply with a CSO control plan.
(Sec. 401)
Within 120 days of enactment, EPA is to issue
regulations requiring that applicants for CSO
permits describe CSO problems, demonstrate
ability to implement within 3 years technology-
based controls required by EPA regulations,
and provide a long-term control plan.  Permits
issued arc to require implementation of the
technology-based controls, include a
compliance schedule for implementation of the
long-term control plan, and require that water
quality standards be met by December 31,
2009 (Sec. 403).                    	
Domestic Sewage Exclusion
Narrows the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE)
to prohibit discharges of hazardous wastes to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
unless:  the source complies with an applicable
pretreatment standard; the source is scheduled to
be regulated within 5 years by a new or revised
pretreatment standard; the waste is introduced in
de minimis amounts (such as by households, non-
commercial entities, or similar sources); the
pollutant complies with a  local limit regulating
the hazardous constituents, or for non-
prelreatmenl POTWs, with a technology-based
local limit; or the wastestream will be subject to
a Toxic Reduction Action Plan as defined by
statute, (p. 126)
Narrows the DSE generally along the lines of the
Administration's initiative except allow de
minimis discharges only for hazardous wastes
introduced by households and other facilities
discharging only domestic wastewater. Exempts
hazardous wastes thai are biodegradable and that
can be more efficiently deal by a treatment plan
than by the generating source. (Sec. 204(c))
No provision.

-------
-10-
PROVISION
PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
S. 2093
H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
Intake credils
No provision. EPA believes that it has current
authority to allow intake credits.
No provision.
Clarifies EPA authority to provide for intake
pollutants, but limits this only to the Great
Lakes basin. (Sec. 704)
GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER
Ground water
Includes a national policy statement to
acknowledge the interrelationships of ground
waters and surface waters, (p.142)

In the NPDES permitting program, confirm thai
a point source discharge to ground or ground
water that has a direct hydrological connection
with surface waters is subject to regulation as an
NPDES point source if there is a reasonably
foreseeable direct hydrological connection to
surface waters in the proximity of the release, a
greater than de minimis quantity of the pollutant
must reasonably be able to reach the surface
water, and no other Federal statute directly
addresses the activity causing the release.

Includes priority ground waters and public
drinking water supplies in the waters to be
inventoried and used as a basis for protection by
programs authorized by the Clean Water Act,
including nonpoint source management programs
and proposed watershed management programs.
(pp. 131, 132, 142)
No provision to protect ground water connected
to surface water.

States may include ground waters in their
nonpoint source programs (Sec. 302(a) and may
also include ground waters in watershed
protection efforts. (Sec. 303(a))
Similar to the Administration's Initiative.

Establishes a national policy to protect ground
water hydrologically connected to surface
water. (Sec. 101 (c))

Calls for permitting of point sources
discharging to ground or ground water, except
adds an additional provision that no penalty
may be assessed for a discharge of a pollutant
into the ground or into ground waters unless
the person knew or should have known that
there is a direct hydrologic connection between
ground and surface waters in the proximity of
the discharge. (Sec. 404)

Requires States to identify and protect ground
waters threatened or impaired by nonpoint
sources (Sec. 312(a)); Protecting priority
ground waters may be considered in
designating priority watersheds. (Sec. 315(a)).
Drinking Water
Highlights protection of drinking water as an
objective of Clean Water Act programs.

Includes public drinking waters in watershed and
nonpoinl source management programs, (p. 142)
No provision.
Establishes a national policy to protect fresh
waters for use as drinking water. (Sec. 101(b)).

Makes protection of public water supplies a
priority for nonpoint source grants (Sec.
313(e); protecting drinking water supplies may
be considered in designating priority
watersheds. (Sec. 315(a)).

-------
                                                                                    -11-
        PROVISION
                                        PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
                                                                     S. 2093
                                                          H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
                                                                              ENFORCEMENT
Economic Benefit
Requires that the minimum amount of a civil or
administrative penalty be any economic benefit
that accrued to the violator as a result of the
violations.  Revise the statutory maximum penalty
amounts in civil cases such that whenever the
economic benefit exceeds the cap, the benefit will
supersede the cap. Exempt from this
requirement penalties assessed against publicly
and Federally owned wastewater treatment
works, (p.74)
Requires that the minimum amount of a civil or
administrative penalty be the amount of any
economic benefit to the violator. Limits
administrative penalties to the statutory
maximum; requires economic benefit to
supersede the statutory maximum for civil cases.
'Exempts from this requirement penalties that
would result in cases of extreme hardship.
(Sec. 503(b)(7)
Requires that the minimum amount of a civil
or administrative penalty be the amount of any
economic benefit to the violator.  Limits
administrative penalties to the statutory
maximum; requires economic benefit to
supersede the statutory amount for civil
penalties.  Exempts publicly owned treatment
works from this requirement. (Sec. 309(1))
Federal Facilities
Waives the United States' sovereign immunity for
violations occurring after the effective dale of the
amendments to allow citizens (including Slates
acting as citizens) to seek penalties for all Clean
Water Act violations for which a private person
would be liable.  Allows States to obtain
penalties for Federal facility violations of
requirements in State water pollution control
laws when those penalties go into a State
environmental trust fund. The fund could be
used for environmental projects or projects to
defray the costs of environmental protection or
enforcement, (pp. 79-80)
Waives sovereign immunity for Federal violations
of Federal, State, or local substantive and
procedural requirements, administrative authority,
and process and sanctions (including injunctive
relief, administrative orders, civil or
administrative penalties, or reasonable service
charges).  (Sec. 503(c))
Waives sovereign immunity for violations of
Federal, State and local substantive and
procedural requirements, administrative
authority, and process and sanctions in the
same manner and to the same extent as any
nongovernmental entity, including payment of
reasonable service charges. This provision is 10
apply to any point source or any activity
resulting in the discharge or runoff of
pollutants. Allows the President to provide
exemptions from this provision if determined
to be in the paramount interest of  the United
States.

Penalties and fines collected by States from the
Federal government  for violations of
substantive or procedural requirements are to
be used for environmental projects or projects
to defray the costs of environmental protection
or enforcement.  (Sec. 310)

-------
-12-
PROVISION
Citizen Suits
PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
Modifies the existing citizen suit provision of the
Clean Water Act to assure that citizens may sue
not only for ongoing source violations, but for all
past violations thai are within the 5 year statute
of limitations period and occur after the effective
date of the amendment.
Assures that citizens are provided the right and
opportunity to challenge in State court a State-
issued Clean Water Act permit, (p.91)
S. 2093
Allows citizens to sue not only for ongoing but
for past violations that may have occurred within
the 5-year statute of limitations period.
Clarifies that an agricultural entity is not a point
source subject to citizen suits unless EPA has
required a permit for that activity under the
permitting provisions of the act. (Sec. 503 (a))
No provision regarding suits against States.
WETLANDS
National Wetlands Goal
Definitions
404(b)(l) Guidelines
Exemptions
Embraces the interim goal of no overall net loss
of the Nation's remaining wetlands, and a long-
term goal of increasing the quantity and quality
of wetlands in the long-run.
Congress should adopt current regulatory
definitions of wetlands, prior convened cropland,
waters of the U.S., discharge of dredged and fill
material (activities regulated], and should defer
to Agencies on definition of agricultural lands.
Guidelines do not need to be revised; some
guidance appropriate (e.g., flexibility [issued],
mitigation banking [under development])
Exemptions (CWA Sec. 404(f)) should not be
revised; some guidances may be appropriate.
Certain categories of man-made waters should be
exempt from CWA regulation through
rulemaking (not legislation).
Establishes as national policy the conservation
and restoration of wetlands to increase the
quality and quantity of the Nation's wetlands and
a no overall net loss of the Nation's remaining
wetlands. (Sec. 701)
Clarifies thai wetlands are included in the
definition of navigable waters and defines
wetlands using the current regulatory definition
of wetlands. (Sec. 802)
Includes definitions of fill material and "discharge
of dredged or fill material" which are generally
consistent with the EPA/Army August 25, 1993
final rule. (Sec. 703)
No provision to revise guidelines.
Excludes man-made areas from navigable areas
and adds haying and grazing to exempted
activities. (Sec. 706)
H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
Allows citizen suits for violations alleged to
have occurred up to 180 days prior to the 60
day notice given of intent to sue. (Sec. 503)
No provision regarding suits against States.

Establishes goal of no overall net loss of the
Nation's remaining wetlands, as defined by
acreage and function, and of restoring and
creating wetlands, where feasible, to increase
the quantity and quality of the Nation's
wetlands. (Sec. 101(f))
Creates new definitions of wetlands, prior
converted cropland, discharge of dredged and
fill material, and- agricultural lands all different
(some significantly) from Agency definitions.
(Sees. 405, 501)
Revises Guidelines to provide for more
flexibility. (Sec. 405(b)(2))
Exempts potentially extensive cranberry
production operations from permitting
requirements, unless Corps indicates permit is
needed (would eliminate the State certification
role under CWA Section 401) and exempts
categories of man-made waters. (Sec. 405)

-------
                                                                                   -13-
        PROVISION
         PRESIDENTS INITIATIVE
                   S. 2093
         H.R. 3948 (AS AMENDED)
State/local Role
Commits to increasing Stale, Tribal and local
government roles in Federal wetlands protection
and restoration efforts. Congress should endorse
State Wetlands Conservation Plans; provide for
watershed plans with minimum requirements for
wetlands protection and restoration; allow EPA
to use its State Wetland Grants Program to fund
the operation of State wetlands programs;
provide for State, Tribal, regional and local
programmatic general permits; and provide for
partial assumption by States of the Section 404
program.
Provides for Stale Wetlands Conservation and
Wetlands and Watershed Management Plans and
State programmatic general permits. Allows
State wetlands grants to be used for the
development and implementation of State
Wetlands Conservation Plans, State Section 404
programs, and Slate Programmatic General
Permits.  Establishes a State coordinating
committee.   (Sec. 710)
Endorses and provides for funding the
development and implementation of Stale
Wetlands Conservation Plans (not the
operation of other wetlands programs).
Provides for wetland and watershed
management plans. (Sec. 316)

Provides explicitly for only State (not Regional
or local) programmatic general permits.
(Sec. 405(d)
Takings/Compensation
Administration committed to implementation of
Section 404 thai is sensitive to private property
rights and consistent with the Fifth Amendment
and "takings" law.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers shall not
lake private property for public use without just
compensation. (Sec. 701(b))
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers shall not
lake private property for public use, without
just compensation. (Sec. 405(1))
Delineation
Congress should endorse use of 1987 Manual
pending outcome of National Academy of
Sciences study.
                                                                               Endorses use of 1987 Manual pending outcome
                                                                               of the NAS study; requires notice and comment
                                                                               review, field testing, and consultation with States
                                                                               before new or revised delineation guidelines are
                                                                               issued; and provides for regionalization.
                                                                               (Sec. 702(b))
                                                Does not explicitly endorse use of 1987
                                                Manual or consideration of NAS study.
                                                Requires notice and comment  rulemaking, with
                                                field testing and consultation with Stales,
                                                before any manual is revised. (Sec. 40S(n))

-------
                                               Summary
Columbus, 43221  90-25170

-------
                                  A SUMMARY OF

                    "PROTECTING AMERICA'S WETLANDS:
             A FAIR, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFECTIVE APPROACH'

                                   August 24, 1993
 INTRODUCTION

 The Clinton Administration is proposing a comprehensive package of improvements to the
 Federal wetlands program that reflects a new broad-based consensus among Federal agencies.
 For years, many have argued that the Federal government badly needed to improve its wetlands
 program to  make it fairer and more effective.  But for too long, contradictory policies from
 feuding Federal agencies have blocked progress, creating uncertainty and confusion.  This
 wetlands package reflects a sharp break through the past gridlock caused by warring Federal
 agencies and contains a balanced, common sense, workable set of improvements that will make
 the program simpler, fairer,  better coordinated with state and local efforts and more effective at
 protecting wetlands.

 BACKGROUND

 The Nation's wetlands perform many functions that are important to society, such as improving
 water quality, recharging groundwater, providing natural flood control, and supporting a wide
 variety of fish, wildlife and  plants.  The  economic importance of wetlands  to commercial
 fisheries and recreational uses is also enormous.

 The Nation has lost nearly half of the wetland acreage that existed in the lower 48 States prior
 to European settlement.  The Nation's wetlands continue to be lost at a rate of hundreds of
 thousands of acres  per year  due ;; both human activity and natural processes.  This continued
 loss occurs at great cost  to society.

 Notwithstanding the importance of wetland resources,  Federal regulatory programs to protect
 wetlands have caused considerable controversy. Critics of Federal wetlands regulatory programs
 have effectively characterized those programs as unfair, inflexible, inconsistent, and confusing.
 Supporters of wetlands protection have responded — with equal effectiveness — by emphasizing
 the environmental and economic benefits associated with protecting the Nation's wetlands.

 As both sides have  voiced their strongly held opinions,  the debate over Federal wetlands policy
 has become  increasingly divisive, with agencies fighting agencies and generating enormous
 confusion among the public and the states and stalling needed reforms in the program. In short,
wetlands  policy bad  become one of the  most controversial environmental issues facing the
Federal government, slowing work on the reauthorization of the overall  Clean Water Act.

-------
 THE INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON FEDERAL WETLANDS POLICY

 The Administration convened the Interagency Working Group on Federal Wetlands Policy in
 early June with the goal of developing a package of Clinton Administration initiatives to end the
 wetlands wars, break the deadlock over Federal wetlands policy and develop a set of workable
 improvements to the program.  The group has been chaired by the White House Office on
 Environmental Policy and has included the participation of the Environmental Protection Agency
 (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Office of Management and Budget, and the
 Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce, Energy, Interior, Justice, and Transportation.

 The working group sought  the views of a  broad  range of stakeholders representing all
 perspectives in the wetlands debate.  For example, the group has received presentations that have
 included: a bipartisan group of eight members of the U.S. Congress; representatives of State and
 local government;  environmentalists;  the development  community;  agricultural interests;
 scientists; and others.

 After listening to this broad range of interests, the working group established five principles that
 serve as the framework for the Administration's comprehensive package of wetlands reform
 initiatives.

 FIVE PRINCIPLES FOR FEDERAL WETLANDS POLICY

 1) The Clinton Administration supports the interim goal of no overall net loss of the Nation's
 remaining wetlands, and the long-term goal of increasing the quality and quantity of the Nation's
 wetlands resource base;

2)  Regulatory programs must  be  efficient, fair, flexible,  and predictable,  and must be
administered in a manner that avoids  unnecessary impacts upon private property and the regulated
public, and  minirw^f those effects that cannot be avoided, while providing effective protection
for wetlands.  Duplication among regulatory agencies must be avoided and the public must have
a clear understanding of regulatory requirements and various agency roles;

3) Non-regulatory  programs, suc*i  as advance planning; wetlands restoration, inventory, and
research;  and public/private cooperative efforts  must be  encouraged to reduce the  Federal
government's  reliance  upon regulatory programs as the primary means to  protect wetlands
resources and to accomplish long-term wetlands gains;

4) The Federal government should expand partnerships with State, Tribal, and local governments,
the private sector and individual citizens and approach wetlands protection and restoration in an
ecosystem/watershed context; and

5) Federal wetlands policy should be based upon the best scientific information available.

-------
   COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE OF REFORMS

Building upon these principles, the working group has developed a comprehensive package of
initiatives that will significantly reform Federal wetlands policy, while maintaining protection of
this vital natural resource.  This package  includes  regulatory reforms and innovative, non-
regulatory policy approaches; it includes administrative actions that will take effect immediately,
and legislative recommendations for Congress to consider during the reautborization of the Clean
Water Act.  The Clinton Administration looks forward to working closely with the Congress to
implement this new approach to Federal wetlands policy.

The reform package includes the following  initiatives:

      • To affirm its commitment to conserving wetlands resources, the Administration will
      issue an  Executive Order embracing the interim goal of no overall net loss of the
      Nation's  remaining wetlands resource base, and a long-term goal of Increasing the
      quality and quantity of the  Nation's  wetlands;

      • To increase fairness in the wetlands permitting process, the Corps will establish an
      administrative appeals  process so that landowners can  seek speedy  recourse  if
      permits are denied without  having to go to court;

      • To make sure that decisions are made without delay,  the Corps will establish
      deadlines for wetlands permitting  decisions under the Clean Water Act;

      • To reduce uncertainty for American farmers, yesterday the Corps and EPA issued
      a flnal regulation ensuring that approximately 53 million acres of prior converted
      cropland —  areas which no longer exhibit wetlands characteristics — will not be
      subject to wetlands regulations;

      -   To reduce duplication  and Inconsistency  for  American  farmers, the  Son
      Conservation  Service wfll be the  lead Federal agency responsible for Identifying
      wetlands on  agricultural lands under both the dean Water Act and  the Ftod
      Security Act;

      •  To dose a loophole that has led  to the degradation and destruction of wetlands,
      yesterday the Corps and EPA issued a flnal regulation to clarify the scope of
      activities regulated under the Clean Water Act;

      •  To emphasize that all  wetlands  are not of equal  value, yesterday EPA and the
      Corps issued guidance to field staff highlighting the flexibility that exists to apply
      less vigorous permit review  to small  projects with minor  environmental Impacts;

      •   To ensure consistency  and fairness,  the Army  Corps of Engineers, the
      Environmental Protection Agency, the Soil Conservation  Service, and the Fish and
      Wildlife Service will all use the same procedures to Identify wetland areas;

-------
       • To increase the predictability and environmental effectiveness of the Clean Water
       Act  regulatory  program and to help attain  the no  overall net Iocs goal,  the
       Administration endorses the use of mitigation banks;

       • To reduce the conflict that can result between wetlands protection and development
       when decisions are made on a  permit-by-permit basis, the Administration strongly
       supports Incentives for States  and localities to engage In watershed planning;

       •  To provide effective incentives for farmers to restore wetlands on their property,
       the Administration will continue to support Increased funding for the USDA'j
       Wetland Reserve Program;  and

       •  To help attain the long-term goal of increasing the quantity and quality of the
       Nation's wetlands,  the Administration will promote the restoration of damaged
       wetland areas through voluntary, non-regulatory programs.

 CONCLUSION

 This package breaks the gridlock that has paralyzed wetland policy in the past and represents a
 major advance in reforming and improving the wetlands program nationwide.  It reflects the
 President's broader commitment to "reinventing" government to make it more responsive, more
 effective and more efficient.

 The  critics of the wetlands regulatory program have performed' a service to the country by
 highlighting the need for meaningful reform in the administration of wetland regulatory programs.
 Many of the much needed reforms contained in this package — such at permit deadlines, an
 appeals process,  mitigation banking,  and increasing the role of state  and local government in
 wetlands regulation — have been proposed by those seeking improvements in the operation of
 the current regulatory program.

The supporters of wetlands protection have also performed a service  by helping to inform the
Nation of the environmental and economic importance of wetlands, a valuable natural resource
that was once routinely destroyed.  Their strong commitment to protecting and restoring this vital
resource is also reflected in this package.  For example, a loophole hat been dosed in Federal
regulations that allowed  the degradation and destruction of wetlands; the "Alaska 1% rule,"
which would have greatly relaxed wetlands protection in Alaska, will be withdrawn; and the
Administration will draft an Executive Order affirming its commitment to the preservation and
restoration of wetland
By adopting an approach based upon the effective protection of an important natural resource in
a manner that is £air and flexible, the Clinton Administration proposes a wetlands policy that
recognizes both the value of wetland resources and the need to minimize regulatory burdens.
     For a copy of the Administration Wetlands Plan, call the EPA Wetlands Hotline
     at 1-800-832-7828 (contractor operated).

-------
                                                               Memorial Day
                                                               Perspective
Columbus, 43221  90-2517C

-------
&EPA
                 United States
                 Environmental Protection
                 Agency
                Office of Water
                Washington, DC 20460
EPA800-R-94-003
May 1994
Clean Water:  A Memorial Day
Perspective
                                                 I Hi
                                                    -*

                                          iilliwlli: '; "i.:;:,%- .--*»^
                                            PrinMO on pop* mat contains
                                            at IMA 50% f«^e»«l Mw

-------
  Contents
  Overview
  Water-Based Recreational Activities
  The Value of Clean Water:  Profiles from Around
  the Country

  The Clean Water Act's Imprint:  How Has It
  Made a Difference?
  Future Benefits from a New Clean Water Act
  Conclusion
  References by Section
15  l
17  =
22
23
|  Cover photo by Pat Cunningham

-------
 Overview
    The penod between Memorial
Day and Labor Day marks prime
vacation time here in the United
States, and for millions of Americans
that means heading to the water.
Each year, -our beaches, lakes, rivers,
and wetlands provide multiple recre-
ational opportunities, such as fishing,
swimming, and boating. There is
compelling evidence of the contribu-
tion these activities make to local and
regional economies. Consider the $4
billion lost by the states of New  York
and New Jersey from beach closures
following the medical waste washups
during the summers of 1987 and 1988.
While the full extent of economic
benefits to the Nation has not been
assessed, data suggest a significant
contribution to  the Gross  National
Product: billions of dollars are spent
and millions of jobs are created
annually from recreational activity.
    The Clean  Water Act is the
national statute that protects our
waters, and Congress is currently
considering how this Act might be
improved. The Clinton Administration
has put forward a proposal to reautho-
rize the Clean Water Act  to better
address those sources, such as
polluted runoff and toxic discharges,
that continue to pollute our waters,
and to provide states with more  funds
to assist with cleanup and restoration
efforts. Those funds are expected to
create some 400,000 jobs over the next
decade, and they will help to ensure
that clean waters are available for a
wide variety of purposes,  including
enhanced recreational  opportunities
for all Americans.

-------
Water-Based Recreational Activities
    Water-based recreational activities
require clean water. If the water is
contaminated with toxics or lacks suffi-
cient oxygen, fishing suffers. If bacteria
are found, swimming can become dan-
gerous and beaches are closed. And, if
aquatic habitat is destroyed, bird-
watchers and hunters may find their
opportunities for recreational enjoy-
ment greatly diminished. Even non-
contact recreational activities, such as
boating, rely on aesthetically pleasing
water, free of debns and noxious odors.
    The examples below highlight the
value of water-based recreation and
provide further evidence of the need to
keep our waters clean.

Sport  Fishing

    Each year, 36 million people par-
ticipate in some form of sport fishing
on our Nation's fresh and salt waters,
spending approximately $24 billion in
the process. These expenditures ripple


    Each year, 36 million
    people  participate in
 some form of sport fishing
    on our  Nation's fresh
       and  salt waters.
through the economy, generating
$70 billion in economic output and
supporting around 1 million jobs,
while also generating substantial tax
revenues for local, state, and federal
governments. In 1991, $1.2 billion
were contributed in federal income
taxes and over $2 billion were gener-
ated in state income and sales taxes.
   Fishing continues to grow in
popularity. The number of anglers
increased 11 percent between 1985
and 1990 alone, and expenditures on
angling jumped 27 percent in that
same period. Participation in cold-
water fishing is expected to increase
threefold between 1990 and 2040,
while warmwater fishing is expected
to nearly double. Freshwater anglers
now number more than 30 million and
spend more than $15 billion annually.

-------
Swimming and
Beach Use

    In 1987, there were 460 million
trips to participate in outdoor swim-
ming (nonpool). Much of this swim-
ming occurred  at the beach where
Americans often choose to vacation.
One study of the  southeast coastal
region  found that beach visitors had
an average stay of 2.5 days and spent
approximately  $234 per person. In
Florida, where the State s economy is
closely tied to tourism, a study showed
that beachgoers generated $2.3 billion
in economic benefits annually.

Wildlife-Related
Activities

    About 40 percent of all American
adults made 342  million visits to
outdoor sites in 1991 to enjoy
nonconsumptive wildlife activities,
such as bird-watching and camping.
Of those involved in such activities,
23 percent visited oceanside areas;
64 percent visited lake and streamside
areas; and 39 percent visited marshes,
wetlands, and swamps. These visits
generated over $18 billion  in spend-
ing.
    Birdwatching is a prime example
of a nonconsumptive means of enjoy-
ing  wildlife, and it continues to grow
in popularity. More than 76 million
people in the United States consider
themselves birdwatchers, and total
annual expenditures by this group
exceed $20 billion a year. The number
one  interest of people observing birds
is waterfowl and shorebirds (64 per-
cent of total participants). Birders are
particularly interested in observing
unusual or rare bird species, and
60 percent of the bird species listed as
having unstable or declining popula-
.lons are dependent on wetland or
coastal habitats.
    Bird observation is dependent on
clean water, and many heavily used
birdwatching spots are located in
riparian, estuanne, and coastal areas.
For example, the 80,000 annual  visi-
tors to  Grand Island, Nebraska,  to see
the Sandhill and Whooping Crane
migration account for $40 million of
economic activity in that area. And
coastal wildlife refuges routinely
experience larger numbers of visitors
than noncoastal refuges.
    Companies catering to persons
interested in various types of nature
observation have enjoyed enormous
growth during the past 10 years.
Many shopping malls in the  United
States now have some type of nature-
related store. The variety and total
number of field guide books sold to aid
in the identification and observation of
wildlife, fish, and plant life has grown

-------
 considerably. Guided tours have
 sprung up in all parts of the country.
 In fact, ecotourism—long distance or
 extended trips for the enjoyment of
 nature—appears to be the tourist
 industry's fastest growing sector.
     Hunting of water-dependent  spe-
 cies is another important contributor
 to economic activity in many parts of
 the country,'and much of this hunting
 takes place in wetland areas. Approxi-
 mately three million hunters spent
 $686 million in 1991 hunting wetland-
 dependent waterfowl.
    A California rice grower earned
 over $40,000 by managing and offer-
ing 4.500 acres of wetland habitat to
30 hunters for waterfowl and pheas-
ant hunting activities.
                                      Boating
                                         Americans took 220 million trips
                                     in 1991 to participate in motor boat-
                                     ing. Total expenditures on recreational


                                     In 1990, the boating-related
                                         recreational industry
                                        provided jobs for about
                                             600,000 people.


                                     boating (motorized and nonmotorized)
                                     quadrupled from 1970 to 1989. In
                                     1993, some $11 billion was spent at
                                     the retail level for new and used
                                     boats, motors, accessories, fuel,
 repairs, club memberships, and other
 related items. In 1991, Americans
 owned 16 million recreational boats,
 half of which were motorized, with
 the remainder being sailboats, canoes,
 kayaks, and similar vessels. In 1990,
 there were more than  6,200 manufac-
 turers of boats and boating accessories
 and 8,300 marinas, boat yards, and
 yacht clubs. In that year, the boating-
 related recreational industry provided
jobs for about 600,000  people.

-------
The Value  of Clean Water:
Profiles  from Around the  Country
    The previous section provides
an indication of how significant water-
based recreation is to the national
economy. What follows are profiles
from around the country depicting
how water quality conditions, some-
times improving and sometimes
degrading, can affect the economies
and quality of life in local communi-
ties. The effects are often far-reaching,
thus the profiles are not limited to
recreational impacts but include im-
pacts in other areas, such as real
estate values and commercial fishing,
as well.

Boise, Idaho

    The Boise, Idaho, Chamber of
Commerce knows how to make an
impact. The first impression when
picking up a copy of the promotional
brochure for the state's capital city is
that of a beautiful river,  bounded by
generous green space along both sides,
running through the middle of a thriv-
ing metropolitan environment. This
same picture would not have been
possible 30 years ago. For decades, the
nver served as a dumping ground:
old cars were found scattered along
the banks and raw sewage from
homes and businesses was routinely
dumped untre;  jd into the waterway.
Some said the wastes from slaughter-
houses literally caused the river to
''run red."
    Beginning in the sixties, the
residents decided they had had
enough, and their outcry prompted
the beginning of a movement to clean
things up. A contiguous belt of
parkland, later to be called the
greenbelt, was established along a
corridor of riverfront property that
was owned primarily by the city.
Many in the community joined in to
restore the area for public use. Some
of the river's biggest polluters, such as
the slaughterhouses, determined they
could not continue to operate as they
had historically. They moved their
facilities away from the urban area,
and significantly upgraded their
operations and treatment capabilities
in the process. Approximately $30
million in federal funds were com-
bined with state and local resources to
build, upgrade, and expand the city's
wastewater infrastructure.  The latest
water quality assessment from the
U.S. Geological Survey showed that
treated wastewater effluent from  the
city's facilities was of sufficient quality
that it had no adverse impact on  the
river. Further pollution control was
achieved through city and county


 Management of the Boise
River has become a symbol
   to the community of a
 commitment to a lifestyle.


ordinances aimed at reducing polluted
runoff from development. Most
recently, multiple stakeholders from
within the watershed have banded
together to study and plan for the
river's long-term management.
   What have these efforts
produced9 Today, the citizens and
businesses of Boise enjoy a vastly
improved resource. David Eberle. a
visiting professor at Boise State
University, has studied the nver and

-------
   Boise River

   its impact on the residents there. He
   has found that "Boise residents have
   an especially personal connection with
   the great outdoors, and management
   of the Boise River has become a
   symbol to the community of a commit-
j   ment to a lifestyle." As one resident
j   put it, "People come to Idaho for the
i   outdoors and move to Boise for the
j   jobs."
!      Of all their environmental
!   attributes, he has found residents are
!   most proud of the river.
i      Swimmers, tubers, and cancers
!   now enjoy use of the same river that
|   was once considered unsafe for human
   contact. As one frequent user
   commented,''Ten years ago, I'd float
   the river and never see a soul. Last
   Saturday, there were 300 people and
   over 70  boats on the river.''
      Fish and wildlife are also
   benefitting. The river now supports a
   considerable waterfowl population,
   including an endangered species—bald
eagles. While problems with habitat
and low flows in winter months
prevent a self-sustaining fishery, the
river's water quality is sufficient to
allow 55,000 trout released every
Spring by the Fish and Game Depart-
ment to thrive. This is especially sig-
nificant in a state  where eight times
as many people fish as the national
average.
    To celebrate the river's comeback,
the city now holds an annual River
Festival. In 1992, nearly 600,000
people traveled an average of 558
miles over a 3-day period to attend
the celebration, and, according to Mr.
Eberle, spending for items such  as
lodging, food, and souvenirs generated
over  $20 million for the local economy.
    The return of the river is
stimulating the economy in other
ways. While the Chamber of Com-
merce does not have exact figures
relating the economy to improving
water quality conditions, they do
report that the nver is a frequently
mentioned attribute by businesses
considering locating in Boise. Jay
Clemens, Chamber of Commerce
president, commented that ''It's  a
unique thing to be able to walk
behind your corporate workplace to
fish in a relatively natural setting."
Rather than avoiding the river,  new
and existing businesses now consider
the waterfront a prime location. The
same is true for residents, and this
demand is reflected in average hous-
ing costs. On average, a waterfront
property sells for about 560.000  more
than those not on the waterfront.
    Today, the nver makes Boise a
special place to live. However, it is not
without its problems. In particular,
stormwater runoff can have signifi-
cant water quality impacts, and,  like
many cities, Boise is struggling to
control this runoff more effectively.
As the population continues to grow,
more and more people will desire
access to the river,  placing the river
and its improved quality at risk.
Boise's challenge is to maintain the
dramatic achievements that have been
made, while also looking ahead at
ways to solve those problems that
remain. This dilemma was articulated
by Boise State Biology professor Bob     ]
Rychert. In an interview with a Boise
magazine he stated, 'The Boise
River—as  we  study a limited stretch—
has pretty high water quality in my
view. The  thing is,  can you maintain
Connecticut River
and Long Island
Sound  Watershed

    'Twenty years ago, the Connecti-
cut River was called "the prettiest
sewer in the Nation." Inadequate
•levels of wastewater treatment,
discharges of toxic pollutants, and
polluted runoff were responsible for
fouling this once wonderful waterway,
as well as Long Island Sound, the
estuary into which it drains.
    Thanks to upgraded municipal
and industrial treatment systems and
federal and state programs under the
Clean Water Act to control  polluted

-------
            Long Island
Connecticut River-Long Island Sound

runoff, water quality in both the
Sound and the Connecticut River has
begun to improve, and this, in turn,
has generated economic benefits.
According to a recent assessment,
about $5 billion is generated annually
in the regional economy from boating,
commercial  and sport fishing, swim-
ming, and beachgoing associated with
Long Island Sound. And very signifi-
cantly, Connecticut recently became
the  country's leading producer of oys-
ters, surpassing both Louisiana and
the  Chesapeake Bay in the amount of
revenue generated. In 1992, Connecti-
cut  oyster farmers harvested a stag-
gering 894,000 bushels of oysters from
Long Island Sound—compared to
between 30,000 and 40,000 bushels in
the  1970s. The estimated worth of the
oyster industry is now $46 million.
John Volk, Connecticut's Aquaculture
Director, attributes the remarkable
growth both to the water quality im-
provements  and to joint state/industry
efforts to aggressively cultivate oyster
beds off the  coasts of Bridgeport and
Stratford.
    The once degraded Connecticut
River is becoming a source of beauty,
recreation, and economic
revitalization. Particularly in the
lower river, canoeists, anglers, and
outdoor enthusiasts now populate its
riverbanks, and the river's natural
ecological balance is returning. Al-
though the returns of Atlantic salmon
have not yet met expectations due to
problems in the ocean, water quality
improvements have contributed to
annual returns numbering in the
hundreds. The population of Atlantic
salmon continues to increase  in the
river and is now supporting successful
commercial and recreational
opportunities.
    The river is now becoming a focal
point for much recreational activity.
During the past 2 years, the river has
been host to a major triathlon compe-
tition, and the Greater Hartford
                                                                          Convention and Visitors Bureau
                                                                          estimates that the event generates
                                                                          approximately $4 million dollars
                                                                          annually from the influx of visitors
                                                                          to the state.
                              About $5 billion is gener-
                                 ated annually in the
                               regional economy from
                              boating, commercial and
                              sport fishing,  swimming,
                             and beachgoing  associated
                              with Long Island Sound.

                                Bass fishing is becoming increas-
                            ingly popular along the  river, and, for
                            an unprecedented 2 years in a  row,
Connecticut Oyster Market Harvest
         45

         40

         35

     -Z  30
      o
     =
      5
     a
20

15

10
          0 «•
           72   82   83   84  85   86   87
                                    Year

Source: Connecticut Department of Agriculture. 1994.
                                         89   90   91   92

-------
the river was selected as the host site
for an eastern regional bass fishing
tournament. Anglers from  12 states
visited the Hartford area to partici-
pate. The tournaments lasted 6 days
and were estimated to have generated
about $1 million in revenue each year.
A professional "BassMaster" tourna-
ment is being planned for September
1994,  which will be telecast on
national television. Competitors from
all over the United States are
expected to come and fish in the
Connecticut River.
    Rowing has also experienced a
resurgence along the river, and Hart-
ford was recently selected over  14
other cities as the 1997 site for the
United States Rowing Association
Convention.  Six hundred rowers from
across the country are expected to
attend, generating about half a million
dollars worth of business for down-
town hotels, restaurants, and shops.
    "Hartford is an excellent choice
for our annual convention," said
Sandra Hughes, Executive Director
of U.S. Rowing, 'There is a strong
rowing community in the area and
Riverfront Recapture [a private non-
profit  organization commited to im-
proving public  access to the Connecti-
cut River] is doing excellent work—
developing an urban rowing program
and putting on an annual regatta,  in
conjunction with renewal of the
Riverfront."
    While these successes are encour-
aging, many larger economic benefits
are still unrealized as the riverfront's
transformation has just gotten under
way. Planners  are beginning to look at
land just outside the floodplain for
potential development. New condo-
miniums and other tourist-related
developments are envisioned. The
value of these properties is expected to
be significantly enhanced by current
efforts to revitalize the riverfront as
well as by efforts to improve public
access to the waterway.
     For the first time in more than a
century, downtown Hartford will soon
be reunited with the waterfront. A
landscaped plaza is being constructed
to link the city to grassy terraces that
will provide amphitheater seating for
as many as 20,000 people. A new
Science Center is part of the riverfront
restoration plans and is expected to
draw a half a million visitors per year.
In East Hartford, construction will
soon begin on an expanded Great
River Park, which will include a new
amphitheater capable of seating about
300 people.
    While the water quality in the
Connecticut River is considered good
and continues to improve, the  river
remains threatened by discharges
from combined sewer overflows in
three major cities. Following rainfalls,
bacteria levels in the river exceed
acceptable limits. Through its  com-
bined sewer overflow policy, however,
Connecticut plans to control or limit
the discharges   /vith the ultimate, goal
of making the entire river safe again
for swimming. The community is
beginning to recognize the tremendous
value of the Connecticut River. A
recent referendum on an $80 million
combined sewer overflow project in
nine greater Hartford communities
was overwhelmingly approved by a
4-to-l margin, demonstrating the
residents' willingness to invest in
water quality improvements.
    With regard to Long Island
Sound, excess nutrients have led to
low dissolved oxygen levels, which
continues to threaten this fertile estu-
ary. The low levels of oxygen routinely
observed during late summer months
reduce the abundance  and diversity of
aquatic species. Efforts are now  under
way through the Long Island Sound
Management Conference to target and
reduce nitrogen loadings from both
wastewater dischargers and polluted
runoff throughout the  Sound's drain-
age basin.

Cuyahoga River

    For decades, industries along  the
Cuyahoga River, a tributary of Lake
Erie that flows through the heart of
Cleveland, Ohio, dumped poorly
treated wastes, noxious chemicals,
used oil, and solid debris into its
waters. The effect of these unchecked
discharges was to create a highly
polluted river and shoreline for Lake
Erie.
    In a 1968 report presented at
Kent State University, the authors
described a river whose "surface is
covered with brown  oily film," where
'large quantities of black heavy oil
flowing in slicks, sometimes several
inches thick, are observed frequently.
Debris and trash are commonly
caught up in these slicks forming an
unsightly floating mess." The authors
also noted starkly that "animal life (on
the river) does not exist."
    On June 22 of the following year,
the Cuyahoga River caught on fire.

-------
A stray spark ignited oil and debris
that had accumulated on its surface.
It was an event that embarrassed the
people of northeast Ohio and became
a symbol of the degradation that has
resulted from a century of industrial-
ization that took place without regard
to environmental consequences. It also
was one-of the seminal events that led
to the rise of the environmental move-
ment, the establishment of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the passage, 3 years later,
of the Clean Water Act.
    In the 25 years since the
Cuyahoga River blaze, industries,
local governments in northeast Ohio,
and the federal government have
banded  together in an effort to im-
prove the quality of the river's  water.
Millions of dollars,  much of it autho-
rized under the Clean Water Act, have
been spent to upgrade and expand
wastewater treatment facilities.
Hundreds of permits limiting pollution
to the river have been written and
enforced by the Ohio and U.S. Envi-
ronmental  Protection Agencies. These
efforts have paid off. Levels of
dissolved oxygen have increased,
improving the conditions for aquatic
life, while levels of bacteria, ammonia,
and other contaminants have dropped
dramatically.  Along with these
welcome changes in the biological and
chemical attributes of the river have
come marked improvements in  its
aesthetic values.
    In the  early 1970s, downtown
Cleveland was a virtual ghost town
after the normal working day ended.
The area adjacent to the riverfront at
Lake Erie,  known as "the Flats," was
a dilapidated  warehouse district. The
success  Cleveland has had in recent
years  drawing crowds again to its
downtown area is due, in no small
part, to  the revitalization of the  Flats
and the  improvement in the water
quality in the Cuyahoga River and
Lake Erie.  Today, the harbor area
where the Cuyahoga River and Lake
Erie meet is no longer choked with
debris and  reeking wastes. Instead, it
is bustling  with pleasure boats, which
dock alongside fashionable restau-
rants and shops. The newly clean
river has generated 3,500 tourist-
related jobs in this 820-acre lakefront
area, without sacrificing the 1,500
industrial jobs that already existed
there. The Flats is one of the top tour-
ist draws in Ohio, attracting seven
million visitors each year. It also
boasts a restaurant that is
Cuyahoga River

 consistently at or near the top in gross
 revenues for restaurants nationwide.
     The restoration of the quality of
 the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie
 waters is one remarkable measure of
 the Clean Water Act's success, but the
 data reveal areas where progress has
 been slow. For example, increases in
 the species offish in a water body
 typically lag behind other water qual-
 ity improvements, and this has been
 the case in the Cuyahoga River, where
 fish populations are just now recover-
 ing. Industry and local government
 officials recognize that this recovery
 must continue. As fish populations
 increase, it signals more improve-
 ments in water quality and the prom-
 ise of increased commercial and recre-
 ational fishing  activities, and the jobs
 these activities generate. For north-
 east Ohio and other industrial areas
 like it, it is a promise that can be
 fulfilled by a continuing commitment
 to the  Clean Water Act.

-------
   The Chesapeake
   Bay

      The Chesapeake Bay Water-
   shed—the area that drains into
   Chesapeake Bay—stretches over
   64,000 square miles into six states
   (New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
   Maryland, West Virginia, and Vir-
   ginia) as well as the District of Colum-
   bia. Home to some 13.6 million people,
   the watershed extends as far north as
   Cooperstown, New York, the origin of
   the mighty Susquehanna River, and
   as far south as Norfolk, Virginia,
   where its mouth opens up to the
   Atlantic ocean. This wonderfully
   diverse and complex coastal estuary is
   surprisingly shallow—its waters aver-
   age little more than 20 feet in depth.
   Famous for its crabs and rockfish, the
   Chesapeake is truly one of our
   national treasures.
      While it is difficult to  quantify the
economic benefits of a resource as vast
and productive as the Chesapeake
Bay, a 1987 study done by Maryland's
Department of Economic Employment
and Development estimated the value

   A 1987  study estimated
  the value of the Bay from
  commercial fishing, port
and ship building activities,
  and Bay-related tourism
      to be a staggering
         $31.6 billion.
of the Bay from commercial fishing,
port and ship building activities, and
Bay-related tourism to be a staggering
$31.6 billion. Recreational activities
such as boating, fishing, hunting,
sightseeing, and dining on regional
cuisine accounted for $8.4 billion per
year.
                                                          aware
                    Chesapeake
                    Bay
The Chesapeake Bay

    From the 1960s to the late 1970s,
it became clear that the  Bay was in
trouble. System-wide declines were
recorded in the bay's fisheries, its
underwater grass beds, and its oxygen
levels. Commercial harvests of shad
declined 35 percent in the Virginia
portion of the Bay and 95 percent in
Maryland, eventually causing a fish-
ing ban to be put in place. Similar
declines in striped bass resulted in a
ban for that fishery as well. Previ-
ously, the striped bass population had
sustained a sport and commercial
industry valued in the millions of
dollars annually.
    The Bay's once prosperous oyster
industry—decimated by  overharvest-
ing, disease and loss of habitat—
began producing record low harvests.
Major losses of underwater vegetation,
critical habitat for dozens of species of
fish and waterfowl, has also led to
declines in numerous waterfowl
species, including black ducks.
redheads, wigeons, and canvasbacks.
    The loss  of wetlands also contrib-.
uted to the downturn  in  the quality of
the Bay. One study of a  riparian
forest in a predominantly agricultural
watershed showed that 80 percent of
the phosphorus and 89 percent of the
10

-------
nitrogen were removed from the water
by the forested wetland before enter-
ing a tributary of the Chesapeake
Bay. When wetlands are lost, so is the
ecosystem's natural buffering capacity.
In 1975, Congress directed the
EPA to investigate the causes of envi-
ronmental decline in the Chesapeake.

"The Chesapeake Bay is a
vast natural resource with
significant economic, recre-
ational and social value to
our state and our citizenry.
We are beginning to see a
recovery of the Chesapeake
Bay as a result of a decade
of hard work, determina-
tion, and commitment,
spearheaded by the Chesa-
peake Bay Program ...."

Maryland Governor
William Donald Schaefer
To achieve this goal, EPA established
a Chesapeake Bay Program Office
that has successfully formed partner-
ships with key Chesapeake Bay
states, federal agencies, and other
interested parties such as citizen
groups to take action where needed.
Initial efforts have focused on the
Bay's most significant ecological prob-
lems: nutrient overenrichment, toxics,
and loss of aquatic habitat.
An historical Chesapeake Bay
agreement signed in 1983 formed a
binding partnership among EPA and
the governments of Virginia, Pennsyl-
vania, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia and moved the program
from a research to an action phase.
A second agreement, signed in 1987
expanded the scope of the original
agreement with 29 commitments for
action in priority areas, such as living
resources, water quality, and popula-
tion growth and development.
A centerpiece of the Bay agree-
ment was the establishment of a goal
to reduce nutrients by 40 percent by
the year 2000 and to maintain that
level or better thereafter. Nutrient
reduction is essential to restoring Bay
water quality. Excess phosphorus and
nitrogen literally choke the Bay by
contributing to abundant algae
growth, which then clouds the water
and blocks the sunlight needed by Bay
grasses. Without sunlight, these
grasses die and the essential habitat
and food supply they provide
vanishes Also, as the algae decom-
poses, dissolved oxygen is used up,
forcing oxygen-dependent species to
either leave or die.
Today, efforts to reduce nutrient
loadings and restore water quality are
beginning to have an effect. The Bay
is beginning to see encouraging signs
of improvement. Phosphorus levels in
the main stem of the Bay have been
reduced by 16 percent and nitrogen
levels have been stabilized, despite
significant population growth in the
Bay watershed. Baywide, approxi-
mately 70,000 acres of underwater
grasses are now growing. This repre-
sents an 86 percent increase in acre-
age since 1984, significantly reversing
the declining trends of the 1970s.
Artificial oyster reefs are being cre-
ated in areas where oyster diseases
have less impact and oyster survival
is more likely. Watermen are being
employed in the off-season to
11

-------
   construct these beds and reseed exist-
   ing oyster beds. Finally, the latest
   study on toxic releases showed a 52
   percent reduction in reported toxic
   emissions in the Bay watershed from
   1987 to 1991, compared to a national
   decrease of 22 percent from 1988 to
   1991.
       Future improvements in Bay
   water quality will depend,  to a large
   extent, upon how well polluted runoff
   is controlled. Sewage treatment plants
   and air deposition are major nutrient
   sources for the watershed;  however, as
   in so many parts of the country,
   runoff from agricultural and suburban
   lands continues to be the most signifi-
   cant obstacle to further water quality
   improvement.

   The Great Lakes

       The Great Lakes, collectively, are
   one of the world's outstanding natural
   resources, containing 20 percent of the
The Great Lakes

world's and 95 percent of the United
States' fresh surface water. The Great
Lakes Basin receives drainage from
eight States—Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York—and
the Canadian Province of Ontario.
More than 40 million people live in
the Basin, including nearly 20 percent
of the U.S. population and 50 percent
of the Canadian population.
    The Great Lakes provide
tremendous economic and ecological
benefits to the area. One quarter of all
U.S. industry and more than 70 per-
cent of U.S. and 60 percent of Cana-
dian steel mills are in the Great
Lakes Basin.  Over 23 million people
depend on the Great Lakes for drink-
ing water. The area affords habitat for
a vast array of plant and animal
species, many of which are native to
the Great Lakes Basin.
    Recreational benefits are also
significant.  Data from the mid-1980s
indicate that  recreational boating
marinas employed almost 20,000
people. Boat sales and other boater
spending (marina fees, licenses,
repairs, etc.) amounted to almost $4
billion per year. Fishing in connection
with recreational boating and other
recreational fishing expenditures add
another $3  billion to $7 billion per
year.
    Water  quality in the Great Lakes
has improved significantly since the
passage of the Clean Water Act in
1972. Although discharge loadings
12

-------
from wastewater treatment plants
have increased due to population -
growth and development pressures,
levels of dissolved oxygen have
steadily improved. Reductions in
organic material, solids, and phospho-
rus are noteworthy as well. For
example, phosphorus loadings to
Green Bay from the Fox River in 1971
were 4.8 million pounds. By 1982, this
level had been reduced to 1.2 million
pounds.
Chemical concentrations in
humans and the aquatic environment
have dropped sharply. Fish have
returned to some harbors from which
they had disappeared. The number of
double-crested cormorants, a water
bird that all but vanished in the Great
Lakes in the 1970s, has climbed to
12.000 nesting pairs, and the number
of bald eagles is nearing the highest
level ever measured in Michigan.
Improvements in Great Lakes
water quality have had a positive
economic impact on the recreational
fishing industry. Fishing licenses
purchased in ,ast one county of Green

Ohio's Lake Erie tourism
industry is now an $8.5
billion per year business.

Bay, Wisconsin, increased from 19,000
in 1970 to 51,000 in 1989. Boat regis-
trations more than doubled during the
same period, leading to an increase in
demand for launch ramps and other
boating facilities in the Green Bay
area. The revitalization of fishery
resources in Lake Ontario has spurred
the development of the charter boat
fishing industry, boater and angler
access sites, fishing derbies, and addi-
tional employment opportunities.
Water quality improvements and
increased lakeside development have
caused people to return to the shore of
Lake Erie to enjoy boating, fishing,
swimming, and other activities. Today
it is rare to see algal blooms, and
bacterial counts in Ohio beach areas
along Lake Erie have dropped over
90 percent from 1968 to 1991. As a
result, the comeback of Ohio's water-
front has also seen an increased num-
ber of boating, camping, and vacation
resort facilities. From 1986 to 1993
there was a 30 percent increase in the
number of marinas in the Lake Erie
Basin. Ohio's Lake Erie tourism
industry is now an $8.5 billion per
year business.
Lakeshore cities have begun to
restore their shorelines. Cleveland,
Ohio, is now transforming its
lakefront into a popular area for
families and cultural activities. A new
harbor and festival park have already
been completed. Several museums are
completed or under construction and
an aquarium is planned: All this on
the shores of a waterbody pronounced
"dead" just 25 years ago.

The New York and
New Jersey Shore

Every summer, millions of people
flock to the New Jersey and New York
shores to vacation and enjoy the beach
environment. Unfortunately, during
.1987 and 1988, garbage and medical
New York and New Jersey Shores

wastes washing to shore and high
bacterial counts led to the closure of
beaches. Although the washups
occurred for only short periods of time,
approximately 70 miles of beaches
were closed each year. Beach atten-
dance at Long Island dropped 50 per-
cent after the first washups, and a
New Jersey community reported that
the number of beachgoers dropped
from 1,200 per day to about 120 per
day. The economic impact from these
closures was significant: New York
and New Jersey tourism industries
lost more than $4 billion.
A 1991 report published by the
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), Testing the Waters HI,
Closings, Costs, and Cleanup at U.S.
Beaches, provides data on beach
closures and advisories due to high
counts of bacteria and other health
threats. The report documents over
7,000 beach closures or advisories in
22 coastal states between 1988 and
1992. In 1989, there were over 1,000
closures or advisories and 70 percent
occurred in New York and New
Jersey; five New York beaches were
under advisories for the entire sun>
mer. In 1990, the same was true for
three beaches in New York. Urban
13

-------
   runoff and combined sewer overflows
   were identified as the primary pollut-
   ant sources responsible for the
   closures or advisories.
       While the impacts to tounsm are
   significant, other benefits are  dimin-
   ished by the same pollution that  leads
   to beach closures. Commercial fishing
   is often affected as fish kills from
   polluted water reduce both the abun-
   dance and distribution of fish  and
   shellfish stocks. For example,  a mas-
   sive fish kill that occurred off the New
   Jersey coast in 1976 resulted in a loss
   valued at $11.6  million to the state's
   commercial  and recreational fishery.
   Future  losses due to the resulting
   reduced fish population from the  kill
   were estimated at $498 million.
       Ecological quality also suffers.
   Extremely high  levels of water
   pollution along New York and New
   Jersey's coasts have resulted in poor
   and unproductive aquatic and terres-
   trial habitats, which in turn results in
   the loss of the necessary organisms
   and aquatic vegetation that serve as
   food and habitat for fish and other
   aquatic animals, as well as terrestrial
   animals, such as birds.
       Today, problems due to washups
   of floating garbage and  medical
   wastes have  been largely controlled
   along New York/New Jersy shores. An
   mteragency action plan to clean up
   these wastes before they reach the
   beaches is now in effect and includes
   actions  such as aerial surveillance to
   identify floating slicks that could
   potentially affect the shores and
   scheduled cleanups of floating debns
   around  high  moon tides and storms.
   Nevertheless, the beaches still face
threats from other pollution sources,
such as stormwater runoff and com-
bined sewer overflows. Whenever it
rains, these sources can lead to
serious water quality impacts. The
extent to which they are controlled
will be a key factor for future water
quality and recreational opportunity.
14

-------
The Clean Water Act's Imprint:
How Has It Made a Difference?
In 1972, Congress passed the
Clean Water Act to address the exten-
sive pollution that was degrading the
Nation's waters. The original Act,
along with amendments added over
the years, has dramatically improved
the condition of waterbodies in most
parts of the country. As a result,
America's water-based recreational
opportunities, as well as other water
quality benefits, are far greater than
those available 20 years ago. More
waters are now fishable and more
waters are now swimmable.
Today, there are approximately
15,500 publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants in operation, 94
percent of which provide upgraded
levels of treatment. The improvements
in wastewater treatment capabilities
have been possible, in large part,
because of federal resources. Approxi-
mately $60 billion in federal funds
have been made available since the
Act's passage, and these resources,
coupled with state and local resources,
have resulted in dramatic wastewater
treatment improvements. As a result
of this investment, biological oxygen
demanding substances from waste-
water plants were reduced nationally
by 37 percent between 1968 and 1988.
This progress is even more remark-
able given the 22 percent increase in
waste loadings to sewers from a popu-
lation increase of 27 million people
and a two-thirds increase in economic
•and industrial activity.
Clean Water Act controls on toxic
discharges from industry have had a
similarly beneficial impact on water
quality. The states and EPA have
issued permits limiting pollutant
discharges from approximately 63,000
industrial and municipal facilities.
National effluent guideline standards,
which are used to set pollutant dis-
charge limits for specific industries,
have been established for over 50
industrial categories, such as steel
manufacturers and the oil and gas
industry, typically reducing toxic pol-
lutant loadings to waterbodies by
15

-------
   90 percent. These guidelines set toxic
   pollutant limits based on use of the
   best available technology that is
   economically achievable, and a 1989
   EPA study showed substantial water
   quality improvements when  these
   limits  were met.
       Pretreatment, or reducing the
   amount of toxic pollutants that indus-
   tries discharge to wastewater facilities
   for treatment, has also made a big
   difference in water quality. From 1975
   to 1990, pretreatment has resulted in
   95 percent reductions in metals load-
   ings and 40 to 75 percent reductions
   in toxic organic loadings from regu-
   lated industries.
       Reducing losses of critical aquatic
   habitat is another area where
   progress  has been made. From the
   mid-1950s to the mid-1970s,
   approximately 450,000 acres of wet-
   lands were lost in the United States
   every year. From the mid-1970s to the
   mid-1980s, that figure dropped to
   approximately 290,000 per year. This
   change resulted primarily from the
   Clean Water Act wetlands program,
   combined with new state wetland
   protection programs.  Although data
   are not available, it is generally
   accepted  that implementation of the
   Clean Water Act and some provisions
   of the '1990 Food Security Act, other-
   wise known as the Farm Bill, have
   reduced losses even further.
      These estimates stand as testa-
   ment to the success of the Clean
   Water  Act and its vision; however, the
  job is not yet complete. In too many
   places  around the country, water
   bodies  are still not as clean as they
   could be and aquatic  habitats continue
to be degraded. Although many
improvements can be cited, previously
undetected problems are becoming
evident, and some problems continue
to persist. Polluted runoff from our
yards, streets, and farms is now the
leading source of water quality im-
pairment. And toxic chemicals con-
tinue to pose a risk  to public health
and our environment.
    These problems pose difficult
challenges, but, like the  problems that
came before, they can be solved. The
pending Clean Water Act reauthoriza-
tion presents the Nation with an
opportunity to  refine those portions of
the Act that need improving so that
an even more effective national frame-
work is in place to guide future
actions.
States with More Than 50% Wetlands Loss
                                            50^ to 880"r Loss
Twenty-two States have lost at least 50% of their original wetlands. Seven of
these 22 (California, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa. Missouri. Kentucky, and Ohio) have
lost more than 80% of their orginal  wetlands.
Source: Dahl. T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United Slates 1780's tu 1980's.
       U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service.
16

-------
Future Benefits from a New Clean
Water Act
In January 1994, the Clinton
Administration proposed a package of
legislative reforms for reauthorizing
the Clean Water Act. These recom-
mendations address the highest prior-
ity problems that are causing pollu-
tion and preventing communities from
fully enjoying their water resources. If
adopted and implemented, the recom-
mendations would bring appreciable
benefits, including more water-based
recreational opportunities. An over-
view of the Administration's key rec-
ommendations and the associated
benefits that could be expected is
provided below.

Controlling
Polluted Runoff

Most people think of water pollu-
tion in terms of toxic waste being
discharged from an industrial pipe,
and although these sources can still
be a problem, for the most part,
today's water quality problems are
much less obvious. Studies consis-
tently show that polluted runoff from
multiple diffuse sources is the single
biggest source of pollution affecting
our waters nationally.
Controlling polluted runoff from
hundreds or thousands of sources in
an area is not easy; however, the
magnitude and extensive nature of
the impacts can no longer be ignored.
The Administration is proposing a
more comprehensive, targeted
program that would be carried out
primarily by the states with assis-
tance from EPA. EPA would develop
guidance specifying how polluted
runoff should be controlled, and states
would establish programs to ensure
that these practices were put into

Strengthening controls on
polluted runoff would
improve the condition of
150,000 river miles and 7.1
million lake acres across
the country.
place for those waters that are either
threatened or impaired due to pollu-
tion runoff. After sufficient time for
implementation, enforcement
authority would be available to ensure
action where needed.
If fully implemented, the
Administration's recommendations
would reduce polluted runoff and
improve water quality in over 150,000
river miles and 7.1 million lakes acres
that are now impaired or threatened.
17

-------
  Reducing Toxic

  Discharges

      While the number of waterbodies
  being impacted by toxic pollutants are
  fewer than those being impacted by
  polluted runoff, where toxics occur,
  the impacts to public health and
  aquatic ecosystems can be severe.
  Toxics have been linked not only to
  cancer, but also to adverse  neurologi-
  cal, reproductive, developmental, and
  immunological effects. Some sensitive
  species may die from exposure to
  these substances.  These problems
  become even more acute  when one
  considers that many toxics  do not
  degrade easily and may be  around for
  very long periods of time.
      The Administration recommends
  greater authority for EPA to restrict
  or prohibit the discharge of toxic
  pollutants. Establishing limits on
  industry and setting numeric  criteria
  for water quality are the two mecha-
  nisms by which toxics are now con-
  trolled; however, both can be costly
  and time-consuming. When scientific
  evidence demonstrates that a  serious
  threat exists, the Administration
  would provide  EPA with  greater
  authority to take more immediate
  action so that public health and the
  environment are adequately protected.
      Decreasing toxics would have the
  effect of better protecting the environ-
  ment and public health. For example,
  the .number of fish consumption advi-
  sories and bans that are now in effect
  around the country would be reduced.
  This is especially important for people
  who depend on fishing for their  liveli-
  hood, such as Native Americans and
 and those working in commercial or
 charter boat fishing industries. In one
 report, charter fishermen in the Great
 Lakes reported routine declines in
 business of up to 40 percent immedi-
 ately following a fish consumption
 warning.
Controlling Urban
Runoff

    Whenever it rains, runoff in
urban areas, carrying a multitude of
pollutants, such as oil, grease, patho-
gens, sediments, and herbicides is
washed into local waterbodies. In
many cases, this runoff can seriously
affect water quality. For example:
 Fish Consumption Advisories
 in the United States

         *%>                         Number of Advisories
           O                       in Effect (1993)
   O American Samoa                    i— .  Q
                                          1-10
                                          11-25
                                          26-50
                                          51-100
                                          >100
Note:  States that perform routine fish tissue analysis (such as the Great Lakes States)
      will detect more cases of fish contamination and issue more advisories than
      States with less rigorous fish sampling programs.
Based on data contained in the EPA Fish Consumption Advisory Database as of
September 1993 .
18

-------
• According to the Natural
Resources Defense Council,
there were 1,592 days of beach
closures or advisories issued in
1990, 2,008 days in 1991, and
2,619 in 1992. Combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) and storm
water were implicated as an
important contributor.

• In 1990, pollutants from
CSOs contributed to bans or
restrictions on 597,000 acres
of shellfish harvesting areas.
The current programs for reduc-
ing pollution from urban runoff are
considered too complex and too expen-
sive by many state and local govern-
ments. In the case of CSOs, the prob-
lem has been seen as so unmanage-
able that some cities have done little
or nothing at all. The Administration's
recommendations for controlling both
CSO and stormwater management
would improve the existing regulatory
framework by providing communities
with greater flexibility to target and
adapt their efforts to better suit their
particular situation. This approach
would potentially save communities
almost $27 billion per year when
compared to implementation under a
strict interpretation of the existing
Clean Water Act—without compro-
mising water quality.
The Administration's proposal
would reduce the number of overflows
at CSO points from 50 to 80 events
per year to 3 to 4. In so doing:
• Violations of water quality
standards for these waterbodies
would be reduced from 100 to
200 days per year to no more
than 10 to 20.

• Nationally, over 1 billion
gallons of raw waste that are
now being discharged untreated
would receive treatment.
These improvements, along with
a more targeted program for control-
ling stormwater, would reduce
shellfishing restrictions, fish kills, and
beach closures and greatly improve
the aesthetics of our Nation's waters.
Strengthening
State Revolving
Loan Funds

Much of the progress that has
been achieved under the Clean Water
Act can be linked to the federal
investment in wastewater infrastruc-
ture. Private citizens, industry, and
all levels of government have recog-
nized that money spent on clean
water improves not only public health,
but the health of the Nation's
economy as well. .
Between 1972 and 1987, the
Clean Water Act authorized more
than $50 billion in grants to assist
19

-------
   communities with their wastewater
   infrastructure needs. In recent years,
   the grants program was replaced with
   a State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF).
   Rather than awarding grants to mu-
   nicipalities, the Act now authorizes
   EPA to award grants to the states to
   capitalize SRF loans. State agencies in
   turn award low interest loans  and
   other forms of assistance to local gov-
   ernments and individuals to finance
   wastewater treatment  needs. SRF
   loans can be used to build treatment
   works and sewer systems to serve
   homes and industries or to install
   measures to control polluted runoff
   from city streets, farms, and
   construction sites. These loans are
   repaid so that the fund is not depleted
   and remains available  to other com-
   munities needing assistance.
      Since the inception of the  pro-
   gram,  the Agency has awarded more
   than $8.5 billion in capitalization
   grants to the states and Puerto Rico.
   These  states have also contributed
   $1.7 billion in required matching
   funds. Several states have also lever-
   aged SRF assets to generate more
   than $4.5 billion in bond proceeds.
      The success of the SRF program
   lies in the flexibility it  has afforded
   states  to fund a variety of projects.
   States have made loans to big  cities to
   build traditional wastewater treat-
   ment projects, to  local sewer districts
   to build retention basins for nonpoint
   stormwater runoff, and to rural towns,
   which  in turn make loans to home-
   owners to replace failing septic
   systems.
      The Administration's recommen-
   dations would provide states with
even greater flexibility, allowing such
items as pollution prevention and
water conservation to be funded.
    The success of the program also
lies in the nature of loan funding,
inducing recipients to seek out the
most cost-effectw  ..-ays to solve their
wastewater treatment problems. State
officials report that SRF-funded
projects proceed more quickly and at a
lower cost than projects funded with
direct grants.
    The current authorization for
funding the SRF expires in 1994;
however, the Administration proposes
to extend funding through 1998, at
$2 billion a year with declining
amounts through 2004. This invest-
ment, coupled with state contribu-
tions, will  generate $2 billion in SRF
loans each year for clean water infra-    j
structure and the jobs that investment
brings. By the Agency's estimates.
22,400 jobs in wastewater equipment
manufacturing and construction are
generated for every billion dollars
spent on clean water infrastructure.
Thus, the additional  $13 billion that
would be provide under  the Adminis-
tration's proposal would generate  over
290,000 jobs for  the country during
the next decade.
20

-------
    When the figure for the SRF
program is combined with other
Administration funding initiatives,
including $4.6 billion for a drinking
water SRF, $480 million for nonpoint
source controls, and $400 million in
grants for communities facing extraor-
dinary treatment needs, the total
federal investment proposed by the
Administration for clean water infra-
structure exceeds $18 billion, with a
potential for creating over 400,000
jobs.
 Continued funding of the
State Revolving Loan Fund
    would generate over
  290,000 jobs during the
 next decade; total funding
 for all clean water spend-
  ing could generate over
        400,000 jobs.
    These job estimates are impor-
tant to note'when considering the
economic benefits of the Clean Water
Act. However, they are conservative
figures. They do not take into.account
the many jobs that would be created
or sustained as a result of improving
water quality conditions. Industries
such as lodging, charter boat fishing,
and recreational equipment manufac-
turers all depend on the availability of
clean water resources to attract their
customers.
  Potential Job Creation Resulting from
  Continued Funding of the State Revolving Fund
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
T ' '
Louisiana
Maine
Jobs
3,296
1,764
1,991
1,928
21,083
2,358
3,611
1,447
1.447
9,951
4,984
2,283
1,447
13,332
7,104
3,990
2,661
3,752
3OA 1
,Z41
2,282
State
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
n l
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Jobs
7,130
10,009
12,675
5,418
2,656
8.172
1,447 '
1.508
1,447
2,946
12.046
1,447
32,537
5.320
1,447
16,595
2.382
3.330
UC'7'7
State
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
. Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Marianas
.Puerto Rico
TTofPalau
Virgin Islands


,OM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m
HEi^H TOTAL
Jobs
. 3,020
1,447
4,282
13,474
1,553
1,447
6,033
5,126
4.595
7,969
1,447
265
191
123
3.845
107
154



291,198
                                                                                                  21

-------
  Conclusion
      Clean water is an absolute essen-
  tial for our economy and quality of
  life. However, the job of protecting
  this vital  resource remains as
  challenging as ever. The population
  continues to grow, placing our waters
  at increasingly greater risk. At the
  same time, Americans maintain high
  expectations about  water quality
  whenever they turn on their tap or
  venture out to enjoy recreational
  benefits at a lake, nver, or beach. If
  our high expectations are to be met,
  we must sustain existing achieve-
  ments and proceed aggressively to
  control those pollutants that still
  degrade our waters and prevent us
  from fully enjoying their use.
      More effective ways for controlling
  polluted runoff, further reducing toxic
  discharges, and providing financial
  resources to support clean water
  efforts are the keys to ensuring clean
  water  for  ourselves and for future
  generations. The Clean Water Act
  reauthonzation is the appropriate
  forum  for getting these  improvements
  in place.  It is a critical opportunity,
  and one the country cannot afford to
  let pass.
22

-------
References by Section
Water-Based
Recreation

Alpine, L, Trends in special interest
travel, Specialty Travel Index, 13:83,
1986.
American Forestry Association,
Natural Resources for the Twenty-first
Century, Island Press, 1990.
Flather, Curtis, and Thomas Hoekstra,
An Analysis of the Wildlife and Fish
Situation in the United States: 1989-
2040, General Technical Report
RM-178, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture> Forest Service, 1989.
Groom, M.J., R.D. Podolsky, and C.A.
Munn, Tourism as a sustained use of
wildlife: A case study of Madre de Dios.
southeastern Peru, in Neotropical
Wildlife Use and Conservation,
Robinson and Redford (eds), University
of Chicago Press, 1991.
Kier, William M., Associates, Fisheries,
Wetlands, and Jobs: The Value of
Wetlands to American Fisheries.
Sausalito, California, March 1994.
Leeworthy, V, N. Meade, K. Drazek,
and D. Schnieffer, A Socioeconomic
Profile of Recreationists at Public Out-
door Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas:
\ Volumes 1-5, U. S. Department of Com-
; merce, National Oceanic and Atmos-
| pheric Administration, 1989, 1990.
Lingle, G.R., History and economic
impact of crane-watching in central
Nebraska, Proceedings of North Ameri-
can Crane Workshop 6:25-29, 1991.
Personal communication with Bob
Moyat, National Marine Manufactur-
ers Association, January 1994.

National Marine Manufacturers Asso-
ciation, The Importance of the Recre-
ational Marine Industry, 1990.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Statis-
tical Abstract of the United States,
Bureau of the Census, 1994.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service and U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1991 National Survey of Fish-
ing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC, 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, Alternative Usages of Wet-
lands Other Than Conventional Farm-
ing in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and
Nebraska, EPA 171R-92-006, April
1992.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wild-
life-Associated Recreation, Preliminary
Findings. September 1992.

Wiedner, David, and Paul Kerlinger,
Economics of birding: A national
survey of active birders, American
Birds, 44(21:209-13, 1990.
The Value of Clean
Water: Profiles from
Around the Country
Boise, Idaho
Personal communication with Jay
Clemens, Boise Chamber of Commerce,
May 1994.
Personal communication with David
Eberle, Visiting Professor, Department
of Economics, Boise State University,
May 1994.
Stahl, Amy, Urban pollution: Any
solution?, Focus Magazine, Fall 1993.
Personal communication with Lynn
McKee, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10,. Idaho Operations
Office, May 1994.

Connecticut River and Long
Island Sound Watershed
Long Island Sound Management Con-
ference, The Long Island Sound Study,
The Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan. March 1994.
Personal communication with John
Volk, Director of Aquaculture Division,
Connecticut Department of Agricul-
ture, May 1994.
Personal interviews with Stephen
Gephard and Frea Banack, Connecti-
cut Department of Environmental
Protection, May 1994.
Personal interview with Joseph R.
Marfuggi, Executive Director,
Riverfront Recapture, May 1994.
23

-------
   Cuyahoga River
   Ohio Environmental Protection
   Agency, Biological and Water Quality
   Study of the Cuyahoga River,
   Cleveland, Ohio, 1994.
   Oxbow Association, Report of the Flats,
   Cleveland, Ohio, 1994.

   Chesapeake Bay
   Adler, Robert W., Jessica C. Landman
   and Diane Cameron, The Clean Water
   Act Twenty Years Later, Natural
   Resources Defense Council, Washing-
   ton, DC, 1993.
   Horton, Tom, Chesapeake Bay—hang-
   ing in the balance, The National
   Geographic, June 1993.
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Chesapeake Bay Program, A Work in
   Progress, A Retrospective on the First
   Decade of the Chesapeake Bay Restora-
   tion, Washington, DC, September 1993.

   The Great Lakes
   Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
   Agencies in cooperation with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency,
   Office of Water, Long Term Water
   Quality Improvements in the Lower Fox
   River and Green Bay, 1993.
   Dawson. 3had. and Michael P. Voiland,
   The Development of the Lake Ontario
   Sportfishery: Socioeconomic Impacts in
   New York State, Living with North
   America's Inland Waters Symposium,
   1988.
Great Lakes Commission, Travel, Tour-
ism and Outdoor Recreation in the
Great Lakes States: A Statistical
Profile, 1989.

Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, 1992 Governor's Report on
Lake Erie, 1993.
Schneider, Keith, Progress, not victory,
on Great Lakes pollution, New York
Times, May 7, 1994.
Senate Committee on Small Busi-
nesses, Importance of Great Lakes
Environmental Quality to the Economy
of the Upper Great Lakes Region,
Congressional Hearing, August 1984.
Sierra Club Great Lakes Program,
Clean Lakes, Clean Jobs, 1993

The New York/
New Jersey Shore
Figley, W, B. Pyle and B. Halgren,
Socioeconomic impacts, In R. L.
Swanson and C.J. Sindermann (eds.),
Oxygen Depletion and Associated
Benthic Mortalities in New York Bight.
1976.
Patrick Halpin. Suffolk County Execu-
tive, in Oversight Report of the U.S.
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, Coastal Waters in Jeopardy:
Reversing the Decline and Protecting
America's Coastal Resources, December
1988.
McLain, Ashley, Testing the Waters III:
Closings, Costs, and Cleanup at U.S.
Beaches, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Washington, DC. June 1993.
Swanson. R. L., and C.J. Sinderman,
Oxygen Depletion and Associated
Benthic Mortalities in New York Bight,
NOAA Professional Paper 11, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, DC, 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, Assessment of the Floatables
Action Plan: Summer 1989, New York,
New York, December 1989.

The Clean Water Act's
Imprint: How Has It
Made a Difference?

Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson, Status
and Trends of Wetlands in the Conter-
minous United States, Mid-1970's to
Mid-1980's, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC, 1991.
Personal communication with Nikos
Singelis, Office of Wastewater Enforce-
ment and Compliance, Office of Water,
Washington, DC, May 1994.
Personal communication with Danna
McDonald, Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance, Office of
Water, Washington. DC, May 1994.
Tiner, Ralph, Jr., Wetlands of the
United States: Current Status and
Recent Trends, Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC, 1984.
24

-------
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,            •                                                                 j
 Report to Congress: Water Quality                                                                                  \
 Improvement Study, Office of Water,                                                                                I
 Washington, DC, 1989.                                                                                           j
                                                                                                               i
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,                                                                           •  j
 Report to Congress: National Pretreat-                                                                              j
 ment Program, Office of Water, EPA
 21W-4004, Washington, DC, 1991.    .                                                         '
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 Report to Congress: 1992 Needs Survey.
 EPA 832-R-002, Office of Water,
 Washington, DC, 1993.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 The National Environmental Benefits
 of the Clean Water Act, Draft Report,
 Office of Water, Washington, DC, 1993.

 Future Benefits from
 a New Clean Water
 Act

 Natural Resources Defense Council,
 Testing the Waters:  A Study of Beach
 Closures in Ten Coastal States,
 Washington, DC, July 1992.
 U.S. Department of Commerce,
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
 Administration, The 1990 National
 Shellfish Register of Classified Estua-
 rine Waters, Rockville, MD, July 1991.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 President Clinton's Clean Water Initia-
 tive, EPA800-R-94-001, Washington,
 DC, February 1994.
.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 President Clinton's Clean Water Initia-
 tive: Analysis of Costs and Benefits,
 EPA800-R-94-002, Washington, DC,
 March 1994.
                                                                                                             25

-------
Nat'l Water
  Quality
 Inventory

-------
                     United States
                     Environmental Protection
                     Agency
               Office Of Water
               (4503F)
         EPA841-F-94-002
         April 1994
  > EPA      FACT SHEET
     NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INVENTORY
     1992 REPORT TO CONGRESS
        Background

The National Water Quality In-
ventory Report to  Congress is
prepared every two years under
Section 305(b) of the Clean Wa-
ter Act.  The 1992 Report is the
ninth in its series.

The Clean Water Act gives states
the responsibility to monitor and
assess their waters and report
the results to EPA. EPA pro-
vides technical assistance and
guidance on monitoring and re-
porting, and summarizes the re-
sults of the state assessments in
this Report to Congress.

This 1992 Report is  based on
water quality assessments sub-
mitted by 57 states, territories,
interstate jurisdictions, and an
American  Indian Tribe (hereaf-
ter collectively referred to as
states). These State assessments
describe water'quality condi-
tions during 1990-1991.

Rivers,  lakes, estuaries,  wet-
lands, coastal  waters, Great
Lakes, and ground water are all
covered in this Report. This Re-
port also contains  information
on public health and aquatic life
concerns,  water  quality moni-
toring, and  state and federal
water pollution control pro-
grams.
States measure water quality by
determining if individual wa-
ters are clean enough to support
uses such as fishing, swimming,
and drinking.  These uses are
part of the state water quality
standards, are set by the States,
and are approved by EPA.

   A Summary of Findings

For their 1992 reports to EPA,
the States assessed the quality of
roughly the same amount of
waters as in previous reporting
cycles.  Many waters remained
unassessed in the 2-year report
period. States assessed:

 • 18% of the Nation's 3.5 mil-
   lion river miles
 • 46% of the Nation's 39.9 mil-
   lion lake acres
 • 74% of the Nation's 37,000
   estuary square miles.
This represents a near doubling
of waters assessed in the iriital
  uses $uch as ffehing
  swimming, md therefore
  tiit&t the xi?fafet V&fa&et
  goats established by Cott*
two year period for 1984 when
EPA first started to gather this
type of information.

About two thirds  of assessed
waters are of good enough qual-
ity to support the uses states set
for them such as fishing and
swimming, and therefore meet
the Clean Water Act goals es-
tablished by Congress. The re-
Five Leading Sources of Waler Quality Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Rivers
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Industrial Point Sources
Lakes
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal
Estuaries
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources
Resource Extraction
 Source: 1992 Report to Congress.
                                                                  Rocyctod/Rocyctabto
                                                                  Printed on paper thflft contains
                                                                  &t tesst 90% recycled fiber

-------
1992 National Water Quality Inventory
                                                        Fact Sheet
        Siltation
        Nutrients
        Pathogens
        Pesticides
        Organic Enrichment/
        LowDO
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/
LowDO
Siltation
Priority Organic
Chemicals
Nutrients
Pathogens
Organic Enrichment/
LowDO
Siltation
Suspended Solids
 Source: 1992 Report to Congress.

 maining waters are impaired to
 varying degrees.

 In the one third of assessed wa-
 ters that have water quality prob-
 lems, the leading contributors to
 problems are agricultural run-
 off, municipal sewage treatment
 plant discharges, storm sewers
 and urban runoff. Agricultural
 runoff is the most extensive
 source of  pollution  in the
 Nation's waters.

 Nutrients, siltation, pathogens,
 metals, and organic enrichment
 are the most commonly reported
 pollutants in impaired waters.
 Nutrients can overstimulate the
 growth of algae and weeds; silt-
 ation smothers bottom-dwelling
 organisms and destroys stream
 habitat; pathogens cause shell-
 fish harvesting  restrictions,
 drinking water restrictions, and
 recreational beach closures; and
 organic enrichment leads to re-
 duced levels of dissolved oxy-
 gen in water.

 Municipal sewage treatment fa-
 cilities, industries,  and others
 that discharge into waterways
 from "points" such as pipes con-
     tinue to contribute to water qual-
     ity problems.  Municipal dis-
     charges, for example, are the
     leading pollution source in estu-
     aries and  the second leading
     source in rivers. Industrial dis-
     charges are often the source of
     severe problems due to toxicants
               * rivet*
            o
      and are the leading source of
      fish consumption  restrictions
      and the second leading source
      of fish kills.  Storm sewers and
      urban runoff have  emerged- as
      significant problems nationwide
      and are the second  leading
      source  of impairment in lakes
      and estuaries.

      Wetland loss continues at a sig-
      nificant rate and is attributed
      primarily to residential and ur-
      ban development,  agriculture,
      resource extraction activities
      such as mining, and the build-
      ing of impoundments and high-

                 Page 2
ways.  Loss of these resources
(1) reduces the biological pro-
ductivity of waters because wet-
lands are nurseries and breed-
ing grounds for many fish, shell-
fish, and birds; (2) increases the
impacts of floods and storm sew-
ers that wetlands would other-
wise attenuate; and (3) deprives
open waters of a natural "filter"
for the removal of pollutants.

Toxic substances, though not as
widely found as other pollut-
ants, continue to cause locally
severe impacts.   Among these
impacts are fish consumption re-
strictions, fish kills, and contami-
nation of bottom sediments.

Although, in general, the qual-
ity of the Nation's ground water
is good, an increasing number
of pollution incidents affecting
ground water have  been  re-
ported. Underground storage
tanks, septic systems, municipal
landfills, agriculture, and aban-
doned hazardous waste sites are
sources of ground water pollu-
tion cited by the states.

In ground water, the leading
pollutants include nitrates, met-
als, pesticides, petroleum prod-
ucts, and volatile organic com-
pounds.

       River and  Stream
                   For. 1990-1991, fifty-five .states
                   assessed the quality of 642,881
                   miles of rivers and streams, or
                   18% of theNation's total 3.5 mil-
                   lion miles of rivers and streams.

-------
April 1994
                                                 Section 305(b)
 Of these 642,881 miles:

  • 56% fully support swim-
    ming, fishing, and other uses,
    and an additional 6% cur-
    rently support uses but are
    threatened and could be-
    come impaired if  pollution
    control actions are not taken;

  • 38% are impaired.  Of these,
    25% are considered partially
    supporting uses and the re-
      River Miles Assessed
         (For 1990-1991)
 Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
 Total assessed = 642,881 miles
              18% Assessed
              82% Unassessed
        Levels of Overall
      Use Support - Rivers
          Fully Supporting
          56%
          Threatened
          6%
          Partially Supporting
          25%
          Not Supporting
          13%
          Not Attainable
          <
          I
   maining!3% are not support-
   ing uses.

Leading sources - States attribute
72% of problems in assessed riv-
ers to agriculture;  15% to mu-
nicipal dischargers; 11% to re-
source extraction;  and 11% to
storm sewers and urban runoff.

Leading pollutants - States at-
tribute 45% of problems in as-
sessed rivers to siltation; 37% to
nutrients;  27% to pathogens;
26% to pesticides;  and 24% to
organic enrichment.
                                 NOTE
                                  or estmrine sqmre mih is
                                         mty m&& m fc&Klflt-
                                   ttg
 Lake and Reservoir Quality

For 1990-1991, forty-nine states
assessed the quality of 18.3 mil-
lion acres of lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs,or46% of theNation's
39.9 million lake acres.

Of these 18.3 million acres:

 • 43% fully support fishing,
   swimming, and other uses,
   and an additional 13% cur-
   rently  support uses but are
   threatened  and  could be-
   come impaired if pollution
   control actions are not taken;

            Page 3
      Lake Acres Assessed
        (For 1990-1991)
 Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
 Total assessed = 18300,000 acres
              46% Assessed
              54% Unassessed
                                                                      Levels of Overall
                                                                     Use Support - Lakes
                                        Fully Supporting
                                        43%
                                        Threatened
                                        13%
                                                                        Partially Supporting
                                                                        35%
                                        Not Supporting
                                        9%
                                                                         Not Attainable
 • 44% are impaired. Of these,
   35% are considered partially
   supporting uses, and the re-
   maining 9% are not support-
   ing uses.

Leading sources - States attribute
56% of problems in lakes to agri-
culture;  24% to  storm sewers
and urban runoff; 23% to hy-
drologic modifications; 21% to

-------
1992 National Water Quality Inventory
                                                   Fact Sheet
 municipal dischargers; and 16%
 to onsite wastewater disposal.

 Leading pollutants - States at-
 tribute 47% of problems in as-
 sessed lakes to metals; 40% to
 nutrients;  24% to organic en-
 richment; and 22% to siltation.

 Pollution can accelerate the natu-
 ral aging process of lakes,known
 as eutrophication.  Eutrophic
 lakes are characterized by vari-
  Estuary Square Miles Assessed
         (For 1990-1991)

 Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles
 Total assessed = 27,227 square miles
                Assessed 74%
                Unassessed 26%
        Levels of Overall
     Use Support - Estuaries
          Fully Supporting
          56%
          Threatened
          12%
          Partially Supporting
          23%
          Not Supporting
          9%
          Not Attainable
          0%
ous  conditions, such as the
growth of weeds and algae due
to high nutrient levels; reduced
water clarity; and reduced lake
depth due to buildup of silt and
organic matter. Almost half of
all lakes assessed  (47%)  were
found to  be  eutrophic or
hypereutrophic.

     Estuary and Coastal
       Water Quality

For 1990-1991, twenty-five states
assessed the  quality of 27,227
square miles of estuaries, or
about 74% of the Nation's total
37,000 square miles.

Of these 27,227 square miles:

 • 56% fully support  fishing,
   swimming, and other uses,
   and an additional 12% cur-
   rently support uses but are
   threatened and could  be-
   come impaired if pollution
   control actions are not taken;

 • 32% are impaired. Of these,
   23% are considered partially
   supporting uses and the re-
   maining 9% are not support-
   ing uses.

Leading sources - States attribute
53%  of problems in assessed es-
tuaries to municipal discharges;
43%  to storm sewers and urban
runoff; 43% to agriculture; and
23%  to industrial point sources.

Leading pollutants - States at-
tribute 55% of problems in as-
sessed estuaries to  nutrients;
42%  to pathogens; 34% to or-
ganic enrichment;  and 12% to
siltation.

            Page 4
Water quality reporting for
ocean coastal waters is limited.
  Pathogens are the second
  te&
  in
 States assessed water quality in
 about 6% of the U.S. coastline
 miles. Only 14% of the assessed
 coastline miles were found to be
 impaired.

     Water Quality in the
       Chesapeake Bay

 The Chesapeake Bay Program
 has implemented programs to
 reduce impacts from nutrients,
 oxygen-demanding substances,
 and pathogens. Nutrients (pri-
 marily phosphorus and nitro-
 gen) feed the excessive algal
 growth in the Bay that results in
 low dissolved oxygen concen-
 trations and losses of underwa-
 ter grasses that provide critical
 food and habitat for waterfowl
 and shellfish.   Pathogen con-
 tamination in shellfish beds re-
 sults in shellfish harvesting re-
 strictions.

 Wastewater plant upgrades, en-
 hanced  compliance with per-
 mits, bans on phosphorus de-
 tergents in the Bay watersheds,
 and nonpoint source controls re-
 duced annual  discharges of
 phophorus into the Chesapeake
 Bay by 40% (4.7 million pounds)
 between 1985 and 1991.  Over-
 all, water quality monitoring
 data confirm that the reduction
 in phosphorus loading is reduc-
 ing phosphorus concentration

-------
April 1994
                                                Section 305(W
 in Bay waters.  Total phospho-
 rus concentrations in the Bay de-
 creased by 16% between 1984
 and 1992. However, total nitro-
 gen  concentrations have  re-
 mained stable in the mainstem
 of the Bay and increased in some
 tributaries.

 The Cheaspeake Bay Program's
 nonpoint source program em-
 phasizes controls for runoff gen-
 erated by agricultural activities,
 paved surfaces, and construc-
 tion  in urban  areas. The pro-
 gram includes nutrient manage-
 ment for applying animal wastes
 and  fertilizers to cropland  in
 amounts calculated to meet crop
 requirements without contami-
 nating ground and surface wa-
 ters.

      Water Quality in the
          Great Lakes

 For 1990-1991, seven Great Lakes
 states assessed 5,319 miles  of
 Great Lakes shoreline, or about
 99% of the Nation's total Great
 Lakes' shoreline.

 Of these 5,319 miles:

  ° 2% fully support fishing,
    swimming, and other uses,
    and an additional 1%  cur-
    rently support uses but are
    threatened  and could  be-
    come impaired if pollution
    control actions are not taken;

  o 97% are impaired. Of these,
    30% are considered partially
    supporting uses and 67% are
    not supporting uses.
These  statistics  only address
nearshore waters, not conditions
in the deeper, less stressed cen-
tral waters of the-Great Lakes.

States attribute a high percent-
age of problem  waters in the
Great Lakes to fish consump-
tion restrictions in place for
nearshore areas.

Information on sources and pol-
lutants in the Great Lakes is lim-
ited. Atmospheric deposition,
contaminated  sediments, and
landfills are the leading sources
of pollution, and leading pollut-
ants include toxicorganic chemi-
cals, such as PCBs; metals; nu-
trients; and organic enrichment.

Persistent Great Lakes problems
include toxic contamination of
fish tissue and sediments. How-
ever, the trophic status of the
Great Lakes has  improved due
to declining phosphor us concen-
trations.

      Status of Wetlands

Wetlands are being lost at a sig-
nificant rate, totaling a net loss
of 2.6 million acres over the 9
years of a recent U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Survey Report to Con-
                                           Page 5
gress (Wetlands Statusand Trends
in the Coterminous U.S., mid-1970s
to mid-1980s, September 1991).

States reportthat agriculture and
commercial and residential de-
velopment  are the  leading
sources of wetland losses.

Sedimentation and nutrients are
cited as the leading pollution
problems in wetlands.

    Ground Water Quality

About 53% of the U.S. popula-
tion relies to some extent  on
ground water as drinking wa-
ter.

The most frequently cited
sources of ground water con-
tamination are underground
storage tanks, agricultural  ac-
tivities, septic systems, munici-
pal landfills, industrial landfills,
and abandoned  hazardous
waste sites.

The most frequently cited pol-
lutants in ground water include
nitrates, identified as a ground
water problemby 49 States, vola-
tile organic chemicals (48 States),
petroleum products (46 States),
metals (45 States), and pesticides
(43 States).

      Public Health and
     Aquatic Life Impacts

States report elevated concen-
trations of toxic substances in
8% of monitored river miles, 43%
of monitored lake acres, and 13%
of monitored estuarine square
miles.

-------
1992 National Water Qualify Inventory • Fact Sheet
Forty-seven States cite 1,279 wa- sing efforts on carefully chosen management activities imple-
terways with fish consumption watersheds. The WPA is not a mented at the state and local
advisories. Mercury, PCBs,pes- new government program, but levels.
ticides,dioxm, and other organic rather a means of pulling to-
chemicals and heavy metals are gether the resources and exper- The EPA is responsible for 20
most commonly cited pollutants tise of existing local, State/ programs related to ground
causing fish consumption re- Tribal, and Federal programs. water protection. EPA issued
strictions. the National Guidance to assist
Point source dischargers are States in developing Compre-
Twenty-seven states discuss regulated through permits is- hensive Ground Water Protec-
problems with toxic contamina- sued by the states or EPA. As of tion Programs (CSGWPPs),
tion of bottom sediments. These June, 1992, most dischargers which are a key component of
states reported 669 incidents of were meeting their permit lim- the Agency's Ground Water Pro-
contamination caused primarily its, but 10% of major municipal tection Strategy. The States have
by heavy metals, PCBs, dioxin, dischargers and 7% of directly- adopted a variety of programs
and pesticides. discharging industrial plants to address ground water con-
were not meeting their permit tarhination. These include
Forty-three states reported 930 conditions (i.e., were in "signifi- implementing ground water
pollution-caused fish kills affect- cant noncompliance"). protection strategies, enacting
ing more than 5 million fish. Low comprehensive ground water
levels of dissolved oxygen, pes- The National Pretreatment Pro- protection legislation, and estab-
ticides, manure and silage, oil gram protects municipal waste- lishing programs to protect well-
and gas, and chlorine are the water treatment plants and the head areas.
leading pollutants causing the environment from the impacts
fish kills, and the leading sources of toxic discharges into sewers Over the next few years, EPA
include agriculture, industrial from industrial sources. Fifty- and the States are committed to
discharges, municipal sewers, four percent of significant in- implementing a wide variety of
spills, and pesticide applications, dustrial users of sewage treat- water pollution control pro-
ment facilities are reported to be grams. These programs include
Thirty states reported 371 swim- in significant noncompliance the National Combined Sewer
ming area closures, most of with discharge standards and/ Overflow Strategy, storm sewer
short-term duration and attrib- or self-monitoring and report- permitting requirements; and
uted to bacteria from sewage ing requirements. Thirty-five water quality standards for wet-
treatment plants, combined percent of municipalities re- lands.
sewer overflows, and urban run- quired to do so have not fully
off.- implemented their pretreatment Improving Nationwide
programs. Monitoring: The Intergovern-
Stotas of Pollution . • mental Task Force on Moni-
Control Programs All states have assessed their toring Water Quality
nonpoint source pollution prob-
Since the 1990 Report to Con- lems, and all have developed In 1992, the Intergovernmental
gress, EPA and many States have nonpoint source management Task Force on Monitoring Wa-
moved toward a more geo- programs to address them. EPA ter Quality (ITFM) convened to
graphically oriented approach has approved 51 state nonpoint prepare a strategy for improv-
to water quality management, source management programs ing water quality monitoring
In 1991, EPA highlighted the and portions of all remaining nationwide. The ITFM is a Fed-
Watershed Protection Approach programs. Nonpoint sources are eral/State partnership of ten
(WPA), a framework for focus- primarily addressed through Federal agencies, nine State and

Page 6

-------
April 1994
                                              Section 305(b)
 Interstate agencies,  and one
 American Indian Tribe. The EPA
 chairs the ITFM with the U.S.
 Geological Survey (USGS)  as
 vice chair and Executive Secre-
 tariat as part of their Water In-
 formation Coordination Pro-
 gram pursuant to OMB memo
 92-01.

 The mission of the ITFM is to
 develop and implement a na-
tional strategic plan to" achieve  nationwide.  For a copy of the
effective collection, interpreta-  first and second year ITFM re-
tion, and presentation, of water  ports contact:
quality data and to improve the
availability of existing informa-
tion  for decisionmaking at all
levels of government and the
private sector. The ITFM is also
producing products that can be
used by monitoring programs
USGS Office of Water Data
Coordination
417 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
(703) 648-5023
               For more information about the National Water Quality Inventory
               Report contact:
                    Barry Burgan
                    National 305(b) Coordiantor
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503F)
                    401 M Street, SW
                    Washington, DC 20460
                    (202)260-7060           ; •.-•••
                    (202) 260-7024 (fax)
               For copies of this report or the companion summary document,
               use order form on page 8.
                                          Page 7

-------
1992 National Water Quality Inventory	_            Fact Sheet
 For copies of the National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to Congress or the companion summary
 document Quality of Our Nation's Waters: 1992 check the appropriate box(es) below and mail for Fax
 this form the the address/Fax number indicatated below. Allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.
         National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to Congress (EPA841-R-94-001)
         Quality of Our Nation's Waters: 1992  (EPA841-S-94-002)
                 Please print clearly:

                       Ship to: 	

                       Title:	
                       Organization:.

                       Address: 	
                       City, State, Zip:
                       Daytime Phone:
                                   Please include area code
                                    Return this form to:
                                          NCEPI
                              11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
                                    Cincinnati, OH 45242
                                    FAX: (513) 891-6685

                                           PageS

-------
Rhetoric and>
 Reality    •

-------
             The Clean Water Act

             Rhetoric and Reality
Costs                                          Page  1
Consideration of Risk                                   2
Why Reauthorize?                                      3
Mandates                                             4
Stormwater                                           4
The Causes of Water Pollution                            5
Too tough on Farmers?                                 6
Voluntary Watershed Planning                            7
Chlorine                                             8
Wetlands                                             9
Groundwater                                         14

-------
.Rhetoric:     The President's CWA Initiative will impose huge new costs on industry, states,
              and municipalities.
 Reality       ^^ Administration's CWA proposals actually would result in net savings
              of $29 billion per year; compared to the costs that would be incurred under
              stringent interpretation of current law.  The largest category of avoided costs
              is in the proposed revisions to the stormwater program: private sources ($15
              billion/year) and municipalities ($750 - $850 million/year).  Municipalities
              will also reduce an estimated $11 billion/year cost savings from the combined
              sewer overflows (CSO) provisions in the Initiative.  For more detail, see
              "President's Clean Water Initiative: Analysis of Costs and Benefits" included
              in this notebook.

-------
Rhetoric: The CWA Initiative does not take a risk-based approach to our remaining
water quality problems.

Reality. The President's Initiative focuses on those pollutants and sources that are
the largest contributors to water resource impairment nationwide while
providing greater flexibility in directing resources where they will be most
effective. One of the key elements of the Initiative is a strengthened program
for addressing polluted runoff, targeted Qnlyjo those sources likely to be
contributors to water pollution. Up to now, the CWA has imposed strict
regulation on certain types of sources. Data from the States sugest that 72%
of the remaining problem in our lakes, rivers and streams comes from polluted
runoff. EPA's panel of top, independent scientists-the Science Advisory
Board-has identified nonpoint source pollution as a leading source of
ecological risk to our nation's surface waters.

At the same time, the President's initiative seeks to exempt from stormwater
permitting millions of small sources that are not contributing to impairment,
the Administration's stormwater targeting will cut future costs by about $10
billion per year.

Also, the Initiative's watershed provision is a means of identifying the largest
sources of risk to human health and ecological resources in a particular locale.
and targeting programs and expenditures on cost-effective methods of
controlling priority sources.

-------
Rhetoric:     T^ Clean Water Act Has been successful in improving [he quality of the
             nation's waters.   The law ain't broke, so why fix it?

Reality:      Our country has been successful in cleaning up most wastewater
             discharges from municipal and industrial treatment plants and other
             "point sources", but this progress has unmasked problems created by
             polluted runoff. A reauthorized  Clean Water Act must contain improved
             measures to address this wet weather runoff from  farms, city  streets,
             construction sites, mining operations and other "nonpoint  sources", to help
             States organize their own mixes of solutions for the water quality problems
             affecting entire watersheds, and to restore and maintain valuable wetlands.
             President Clinton's  Clean Water Initiative would encourage State and local
             governments to organize efforts according to their own priorities for
             controlling both  point and nonpoint sources of pollution in an entire watershed.
             It would also equip  local  governments with tools to control more cost-
             effectively combined sewer overflows and stormwater runoff. The
             Administration also proposes to reauthorize, sustain and fully capitalize the
             State Revolving  Fund that has contributed to die success of the Clean Water
             Act funding for which is  schedule to expire this year. Finally, the
             Administration's wetlands plan will make wetlands protection fairer, more
             streamlined, flexible and effective.

-------
 Rhetoric:     A reauthorized Clean Water Act will only bring along more federal mandates
              with which the States and communities have to comply.

 Reality:      Implementation of President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative will improve
              the existing framework by providing States and communities greater
              flexibility to target and adapt their efforts.

              States and communities are encouraged to look at a variety of ways to achieve
              clean water-getting away from one size-fits-all regulation. The storm water
              provisions in the Initiative give municipalities and States extensive time to
              identify and apply the incremental, cost-effective means to fix the most serious
              storm water discharges which pose the greatest risk of harm to local waters
              and avoid imposing controls where they are not receded.  The Initiative will
              provide communities with CSOs the flexibility to consider environmental and
              economic impacts of various options in selecting final CSO controls.

              Presently, there is a proliferation of reports and requirements used to
              characterize water quality, many of which are overlapping and redundant.  The
              Administration recommends a consolidated  inventory and listing of threatened,
              impaired, and special resource waters that can be used to apply Federal, State,
              and local resources and control requirements in the most cost-effective
              manner.

              Finally, the Clinton Administration also proposes to further reduce polluted
              runoff from non-point sources by setting clear performance requirements while
              assuring  that States can  use a range of flexible measures and further,
              discretionary, site-specific adaptations. The Administration is committed to an
              approach that will achieve water quality goals while allowing enough  time to
              adapt and implement good management practices.

Rhetoric:      The Act will force both large and small municipalities to use expensive  erui-<>f-
             pipe controls to treat storm water discharges.

Reality:       Under the current Clean Water Act, millions of small businesses,  including
              light industrial, commercial, and retail  facilities could be included in
              permitting requirements beginning in October of 1994.  The President's
              Initiative seeks to exempt sources that take steps to prevent pollution, exempt
              small construction sites, allow states and localities to decide what, if any
              action is needed from small facilities.  EPA has already tried some of these
              approaches-but under the current law, the court considering the regulations
              has rejected them.  The President's Initiative seeks  a change in the law  to
              allow local flexibility  and targeting of our resources to the most important
              problems.

-------
Rhetoric:

Reality:
Only industry causes water quality problems
For the last decade, states and others have consistently reported that
nonpoint source pollution is the main reason that water quality objectives
are not being met. States report that the leading contributors to water
quality problems are agricultural runoff, municipal sewage treatment
plant discharges, storm sewers and urban runoff.  Although industrial
discharges continue to pose serious threats - they are the leading source of
fish consumption restrictions and second leading source of fish kills - states
now report that agricultural runoff is the most extensive source of
pollution in the Nation's waters.  According to the  United States
Environmental Protection Agency's 1992 National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress, problems in 72 percent of assessed river miles, 56 percent
of lake acres and 43 percent of estuarine square miles can be attributed to
agriculture.  Leading pollutants causing these problems are nutrients from
fertilizers and animal wastes, siltation from soil erosion, and pesticides.  Storm
sewers and urban runoff have also emerged as significant problems nationwide
and are the second leading cause of impairments in lakes and estuaries.

Also, in many older communities, wastewater from homes and businesses are
combined with storm systems.  When there are heavy rains,  many times these
systems are unable to handle the overflow, resulting in discharges of raw
sewage, untreated commercial and industrial wastes,  and storm water.  These
so-called combined sewer overflows (CSOs) have many adverse effect on
plants, animals and people that live in, or near, the water. CSOs were
implicated as a important contributor to some 2, 619 days of beach closures m
1992 and contributed to bans or restrictions on 597,000 acres of shellfish
harvesting areas in 1990.

-------
Rhetoric:     The Clean Water Act proposals are too tough on farmers

Reality:      Currently pending bills in Congress and the Administration's proposal
             would provide farmers wide flexibility to tailor appropriate and affordable
             water quality protection practices to their farms. With the active assistance
             of the United States Department of Agriculture, EPA would publish broad
             management measure guidance that would consider the costs and the pollution
             and risk reductions achieved and would be broad and flexible enough to allow
             for wide state discretion and appropriate local, site-specific tailoring. It would
             not tell agricultural producers how to farm or what water quality practices to
             apply. Rather, the guidance would set forth goals to be achieved or factors to
             be considered.  For example, an erosion control measure could set a goal of
             minimizing the delivery of sediment from agricultural lands to receiving waters
             by applying the erosion control component of the USDA's conservation
             management system. To achieve this goal, producers could choose from a
             variety of practices available under the system, including conservation tillage,
             strip cropping, contour farming, or terracing.

             It is important to note that not all farmers and ranchers would be required to
             implement measures to protect water quality. The Administration's proposal is
             specifically limited to apply only to watersheds of impaired or threatened
             waters or a limited number of special high quality waters designated by the
             states. New farms or facilities would also implement basic common-sense
             measures as pollution prevention, to ensure that currently clean waters stay
             clean.

             Finally, states would be provided flexibility to rely initially on successful
             voluntary approaches.  States would have considerable time to implement their
             nonpoint source programs - 2 1/2 years to develop their upgraded programs
             and five more years to implement them.  States would be expected to have
             enforceable implementation programs as a means of motivating voluntary
             activity and, over time, to address situations where necessary implementation
             is clearly not taking place.

-------
Rhetoric:

Reality:
The Watershed Provisions are too prescriptive
The Administration's proposal for watershed management is strictly
voluntary, simply providing a federal framework for successful state
watershed management.  The program requirements and 'incentives
outlined below are consistent with the watershed management provision
proposed by the National Governors'  Association. The minimum
requirements are not prescriptive.  States, for example, would be expected to:
1) identify the watersheds most in need of attention-those that are impaired,
threatened, or in need of special protection; 2), designate multidisciplinary,
multiorganirational teams and their lead agencies; and 3)  charge those teams to
establish environmental objectives (which would include water quality
standards and other important environmental goals) and develop and implement
watershed plans to address the highest priority problems within those
watersheds. States would also be expected to lay out a schedule so that all
priority watersheds are meeting environmental objectives  in 15 years.  States
would have the lead role in developing their watershed programs,  and the
Federal government would issue guidance and assist states in developing their
programs.

States that voluntarily choose to implement a comprehensive program would
actually be afforded greater flexibility and would be eligible for incentives that
would help streamline statutory requirements and reduce administrative
burdens. States with approved watershed programs, for example,  would be
eligible to receive a multi-purpose water grant, to tailor nonpoint source
controls, and to align NPDES permit terms on a watershed  basis. To the
maximum extent possible, watershed plans would be allowed to satisfy other
Clean Water Act inventory, ranking, planning and reporting requirements,
including requirements under Sections 208, 303 (d), 303 (e), 305 (b), 304  in.
314, 319 and 320.

-------
                                   Chlorine Study

Rhetoric:     EPA wants to ban the use and manufacture of chlorine.

Reality:      EPA would like to study the uses and impacts of chlorine and chlorinated
             compounds in a limited number of areas to explore both the benefits and
             adverse impacts on human health and the environment.  Chlorine has many
             beneficial uses.  For example, it is important in the treatment of drinking water
             and wastewater  in reducing risks from microbiological contaminants. It is also
             important to the manufacture of many products used in daily life.   However,
             the use of chlorine and chlorinated compounds in certain circumstances can
             also cause adverse human health and ecological impacts.

      As part of its Clean Water Initiative, the Clinton Administration proposes that the
      EPA initiate a process to examine the uses and impacts of chlorine and chlorinated
      compounds in a few important areas.  The purpose of this effort would be to engage a
      wide range of public and private sector experts in a study of the impacts and benefits
      of current uses and of potential substitutes or process alternatives.  The proposal
      does not call for any immediate regulatory action nor does  it indicate whether or
      not regulatory action would take place on the completion of the study.

      The proposed study would have three phases:

      Phase 1  -    Convene a Task Force of national experts. This group would initially
                   identify which chlorinated compounds to study.
      Phase 2  -    The Task Force would collect and evaluate all current information on
                   the use, and environmental and health impacts of chlorine and
                   chlorinated compounds associated with the areas listed above; and the
                   availability, safety and effectiveness of potential substitutes.  The Task
                   Force would submit a report to the Administrator.

      Phase 3  -    After obtaining public comment, the Administrator would issue a
                   national strategy describing any scientifically-based actions deemed
                   appropriate in light of the information collected  in and assessed by the
                   study.  Using existing statutory authorities, these actions could induce
                   both voluntary and regulatory programs.

-------
WETLANDS

Rhetoric: All wetlands are treated equally under the Section 404 program.

Reality: The Administration recognizes that all wetlands are not the same and has
taken steps to ensure that the Section 404 program is implemented accordingly.
In the context of individual permit reviews, the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines
currently provide the Corps and EPA with the flexibility to appropriately scale
the regulatory response to the relative function of the affected wetland, the
character of the proposed discharge, and the probable environmental impact.
In August 1993, as part of the Administration's Wetlands Plan, EPA and the
Corps issued guidance to their field staff to emphasize, clarify and standardize
implementation of that flexibility. In addition, most activities authorized under
Section 404 occur under general permits, where no individual review is
required due to the minor nature of the environmental impact.

Rhetoric: Most Section 404 wetland permits are denied.

Reality: The vast majority of wetlands permits are granted. For example, in fiscal
year 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers made decisions on over 16,000
individual permit application, denying fewer than 400. It is estimated that at
least 80,000 additional activities are authorized by Corps general permits
yearly, In the 21 year history of the Section 404 program, EPA has "vetoed"
only 11 permits.

Rhetoric: Getting a wetlands permit takes years.

Reality: Approximately 92% of all permit evaluations what, technically, is an
evaluation? Does additional review or processes need to occur before the
successful applicant can proceed? (that is both general and individual
permits) are completed in less than 60 days after a completed application has
been received by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Rhetoric: EPA and the Corps regulate wetlands that aren't even wet.

Reality: The great ecological importance of wetlands stems from the variety of vital
functions they perform - and those functions aren't necessarily always
accompanied by the presence of visible water. As International Paper, a
worldwide paper and forest products company stated in a recent advertisement.
"For a good part of the year, many wetlands look as dry as can be. The
wetness is under the surface, at the water table, With the right combination of
water, soil, vegetation, you've got wetlands. And you have something very
important to the ecosystem." Some of the most well-known wetlands, such as
the Everglades and Mississippi bottomland hardwood swamps, often appear

-------
dry.
Rhetoric:

Reality:
So we may not always know a wetland when we see one. Since the 1970' s,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have used the same definition of wetlands for
regulatory purposes. The definition is as follows: "wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface of ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a
prevalence of vegetation typi^aJly adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlan de swams, marshes, bos and similar areas."
In more common language, wetlands are areas where the frequent and
prolonged presence of water at or near the soil surface sustains the natural
systems - the kind of soils that form and the plants that grow, and the fish
and/or wildlife communities that use the habitat. Swamps, marshes and bogs
are well-recognized types of wetlands, but there are many important wetland
types, such as vernal pools, playas and prairie potholes, that have drier or
more variable water regimes than those well-recognized by the public.

EPA and the Corps are currently using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual to delineate wetlands for the Clean Water Act Section 404
permit program. The 1987 manual organizes field indicators into three
categories— soils vegetation, and hydrology-and has evidence thresholds, or
criteria for each category. With this approach, an area that meets all three
criteria is considered a wetland. The 1987 Manual will remain in use pending
the ongoing National Academy of Sciences study of wetlands delineation.

The Government is throwing innocent people in jail for wetlands violations

EPA and the Corps reserve their criminal enforcement for only the most
flagrant and egregious Section 404 violations and only where the violator
knew clearly, in advance of his actions, that he was violating the law. Since
enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, EPA and the Corps have taken
fewer than 20 criminal enforcement action in response to Section 404
violations - on average, less than one per year. Moreover, of those found
guilty of criminal Section 404 violations, fewer than 10 of these violators have
actually been sentenced to jail.

United States v. Pozsgai - In December 1989, a Philadelphia jury convicted
John Pozsgai on 40 counts of knowingly filling wetlands in Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, without a Section 404 permit. Mr. Pozsgai was sentenced to
three years in jail, ordered to restore the site upon his release, and assessed a
10

-------
fine.  Hts conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the U.S.  Supreme
Court.

Even prior to purchasing the 14-acre tract in 1987, Mr.  Pozsgai was told by
private consultants that the site contained wetlands subject to the requirements
of Section 404.  He purchased the property at a reduced price due  to the
presence of wetlands, and then proceeded to ignore no less than 10 warnings
from EPA and the Corps field staff to stop filling the wetlands without first
getting a Section 404 permit.  He also defied a temporary restraining order
(TRO) issued by a Federal court judge. In fact,  the government documented
violations of  the TRO on videotapes, thanks to the cooperation of neighbors
whose homes were being flooded as a result of Mr. Pozsgai's tilling in his
wetlands.

Thus, wetland protection is not only a matter of sustaining very important
ecological functions, but typically also of preventing harm to other property
owners, downstream residents, or water users.

United States v.  Ellen.  In January  1991, William Ellen was found guilty by a
Maryland jury of knowingly filling 86 acres of wetlands without a  Section 404
permit.  He was sentenced to six months in jail and one year supervised
release.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied review  of the conviction and
sentence.

Mr.  Ellen is a consultant who was hired by Paul Tudor Jones to assist in the
creation of a  private hunting club and wildlife preserve on Maryland's Eastern
Shore. With Mr. Ellen's assistance, Jones  selected a 3,000-acre site in
Dorchester County that bordered Chesapeake Bay tributaries and consisted
largely of forested wetlands and tidal marshes. As project manager,  Mr. Ellen
was responsible for obtaining environmental permits and ensuring that the
project compiled with all applicable regulations.  However, despite being
repeatedly told by his own consulting engineers that a Section 404  permit
would be  required, Mr.  Ellen supervised extensive construction work,
destroying wetlands at the site without  first obtaining a Section 404 permit.
Moreover, despite repeated requests to Mr. Ellen from the Corps,  this
unpermitted activity did not stop until the Corps contacted Mr. Ellen's
subcontractors directly.

United States v.  Ocie and Carev Mills  - On January 26, 1989, a federal jury
sitting in Pensacola, Florida,  found Ocie Mills and his son Carey guilty of
knowingly excavating waters and  filling wetlands without federal permits in
violation of the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbor Act.  The judge
sentenced each defendant to 2I months in jail and one year supervised release
after the  prison term,  which was conditioned on government approved
                              11

-------
restoration of the site. The convictions and Sentences were affirmed by.the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ocie and Carey Mills own waterfront property in a sparsely developed
residential area adjacent to FLohda's East Bay, The Mill's purchased this
property at a supposedly reduced rate with the knowledge that the prior owner
had discharged a small amount of Mil on the site. Despite clear warnings from
the Corps and the State environmental agency, the Mills filled the site and
built a canal without first obtaining a Section 404 permit. Their illegal activity
resulted in the loss of hardwood swamp and intertidal marsh habitats.

Rhetoric: If you have wetlands on your property, you can't do anything at all to develop
or build on that property.

Reality: The presence of wetlands does not mean that a property owner cannot
undertake any activity on the property. Overall, more than 95 percent of all
projects are authorized within 60 davs of application. In fact, wetlands
regulation under Section 404 does not necessarily even result in a restriction
on use of the site. For example, many activities are either not regulated at all,
explicitly exempted from regulation, or authorized under general permits.
Moreover, in situations where individual permits are required, the Federal
agencies can work with permit applicants to design projects that meet
requirements of the law and protect the environment and public safety, while
accomplishing the legitimate individual objectives and protecting the property
rights of the applicant.
12

-------
Rhetoric:     The Administration proposes expanding citizen suit authority to allow
             against farmers.

Reality:      Neither the Administration's proposals, nor the bills before Congress
             propose to expand the types of citizen suits that can be brought against
             farmers.  Under current law, certain types of farming operatiosn which are
             classified as "point sources" (such as certain combined animal feeding
             operations) are already subject to citizen suits and will continue to be.
             However, with the exception of reversing the Gwaltnev decision, which may
             subject some "point source" agricultural operations to penalities for past
             violations, the Administration proposes no new citizen suit authority
             against farmers.
                                           13

-------
Rhetoric:
Reality:
Groundwater provisions in the President's Initiative will generate an entirely-
new permit program that will appty to all discharges to groundwater--including
all ponds and lagoons.

The groundwater provisions are narrowly tailored to  protect surface water
by closing a loophole in the Clean Water Act.  EPA has compiled evidence
that some surface impoundments into which industrial wastewater is discharged
are directly causing impairment  of surface water through the groundwater.
Courts are divided about whether the requirements imposed by the  Act can
simply be avoided" by transporting pollution to surface water through  ground
water. To limit the provision to such situations, the Administration seeks a
requirement that only those discharges to ground water  with a "close
hydrologic connection' to  surface water are included. The new provision
would cover a small number of facilities, and would level the field for
facilities that are now meeting normal discharge requirements.
                                            14

-------
Fact Sheets
I

-------
                          Lillk'd MaU'.-,
                          Environmental
                          Protection Agency
   Office of Water
   4101
EPA
May 1994
                 Combined  Sewer Overflows and Storm Water
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are remnants
from some of our country's earliest infrastruc-
ture. Today, when communities build their water
handling systems, they design separate systems
to convey and treat wastewater from homes and
businesses and wastewater from storm runoff. In
earlier times, the wastewater from homes and
businesses were combined with the storm water
systems. The problem is that when there are
heavy rains, they may not be big enough to handle
the flow. The result is an overflow. When CSOs
occur there are discharges to local waters of raw
sewage, untreated commercial  and industrial
wastes, and storm water.

Storm water is water from precipitation that flows
across the ground and pavement when it rains or
when snow and ice melt. The water seeps into the
ground or drains into storm sewers. These are the
drains you see at street corners or a t low points on
the sides of the streets.  All this draining water is
called storm water runoff and is a  concern be-
cause of the debris, chemicals, and other pollut-
ants it carries.

  How do CSOs and Storm Water Affect Me?

When these polluted discharges reach our water-
ways, it can have many adverse effects on those
plants, animals, and people that live in, or near,
the water.  Some examples  that may  directly
affect you are:

   According to the Natural Resources Defense
   Council, there were 1,592 days of beach clo-
   sures or advisories issued in 1990,2,008 days
   in 1991, and 2,619 in 1992. CSOs and storm
   water were implicated as an important con-
   tributor to those beach closures.

    Shellfish (oysters,  clams, etc.) become con-
   taminated with pollutants that settle to the
   bottoms of rivers, streams, and oceans, mak-
   ing the shellfish dangerous to eat.  In  1990,
   CSOs contributed to bans or restrictions on
   597,000  acres ofshellfish harvesting  areas.
   The debris that is picked up and discharged by
   CSOs and storm water can choke, suffocate or
   disable marine life such as dolphinsand turtles.

   Soil that is washed of f construction sites, as one
   example, clog fish gills, damage fish habitat,
   and block the sunlight that the underwater
   plants need to survive.

Under the current Clean Water Act, the scope o f the
storm water program is not well defined. To help
control storm water discharges, the Clinton Initia-
tive would focus on high-priority storm water dis-
chargers by continuing to exempt small sources.
The Clinton Initiative focuses municipal action on
the practices that generate the most pollutants.

President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative would
allow communities with CSOs the flexibility they
need to address their particular problem. This is
not a one-size-fits all national mandate, it encour-
ages communities to look at a wide  variety of
control options. It also allows the communities to
take  cost into consideration when making their
final decision.

Reiiuthorization is needed todo this because imple-
mentation of the CSO  policy in the President's
Initiative will provide adequate treatment for over
1 billion gallons of raw sewage, urban runoff, and
industrial wastewater. Implementation of thestorm
water provisions in the President's Initiative will
not only focus on the high-priority storm water
dischargers; it would also  give municipalities and
States time to find the best way to keep storm wa ter
discharges from harming local waters.  A direct
result will be better protection of public health and
fewer instances when CSOs and storm  water dis-
charges contribute to beach closures, fish kills, and
shellfish bed closures. Water bodies will be able to
meet their  intended uses  (fishable, swimmable)
more often. The Clinton Administration sees this
as a way to strengthen  environmental protection
while providing communities with the flexibility
they need to pursue workable, cost-effective solu-
tions.

-------
                         United Stales
                         Environmental
                         Protection Agency
  Office of Water
  (WH-4105F)
EPA
May 1994
                                                  Clean  Water Act
                                                            Fact Sheets
          WATERSHED MANAGEMENT -- EMPOWERING STATES AND LOCALS
Clean Water is like good health — we take it for
granted until it is in jeopardy. The newly released
National Water Quality Inventory, an assessment
of the health of our Nation's waters, shows that
our lakes, rivers, and estuaries are in a tenuous
state.   Approximately one third of the waters
states assessed  are not safe for swimming and
fishing.

Tackling the nation's most significant remaining
water quality problem — urban, agricultural and
industrial nonpoint runoff — requires that we
look more broadly upstream to determine all the
stressors impacting our waterbodies. By focusing
on the watershed as a whole, rather than on spe-
ci fie sources of pollution, wecan identify thegreat-
est risks specific to each watershed and develop
tailored, workable solutions to meet those needs,
while involving stakeholders in every phase of the
process.

Through the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act, we offer this Nation a precious opportunity to
attain its enviornmental goals and  to do so in a
more cost effective and efficent manner by em-
powering states and local governments to practice
comprehensive watershed management. Experi-
ence with the National Estuary Program, Clean
Lakes Program  and scores of grass roots efforts
has taught us that people are most likely to protect
what they know — the stream in their backyard,
the beach where they vacation —  the local re-
sources upon which they depend for their drink-
ing water, recreation, sustenance, or their liveli-
hood.   The  watershed provides a logical area
within which to build on this localcommitment; to
coordinate private sector, regulatory and volun-
tary programs; and to conduct monitoring.  We
can no longer assume that "national" solutions
will, by themselves, solve all local problems. In-
deed, we recognize that other levels of govern-
ment and the private sector often have expertise,
institutional arrangements, or legal authorities
more appropriate to addressing problems in these
ecosystems than EPA or other federal entities.
The Administration proposes that the Clean Wa-
ter Act guide and reward voluntary state pro-
grams for comprehensive watershed management
that would:

  • Identify the watersheds most in need of attention-
   those that are impaired, threatened, or in need of
   special protection.

  • Designate multidisciplinary, mulriorganizarional
   teams and their lead agencies. Charge those teams
   to:

      - Establish environmental objectives,
        which would include water quality
        standards and other important envi-
        ronmental goals.

      - Identify the highest priority problems
        in the watershed.

      - Create and carry out action plans to solve
        those problems.

      - Revise their plans and actions, as needed.

  • Lay out a schedule so that all priority watersheds
   have management plans in place within 10 years
   and all  waters are meeting environmental objec-
   tives in 15 years.

The Clinton Initiative proposes several incentives
to reward states thatchoose to implement a water-
shed program, including the opportunity to tailor
or target nonpoint source  controls; the opportu-
nity to receive a multi-purpose water grant; the
opportunity to obtain flexibility and streamlining
under the wetlands program; and the opportunity
to realign permits on a watershed basis.
                  "Watersheds are the
                         fundamental
                      building blocks"

                        President Clinton

-------
                         unuea iiates
                         Environmental
                         Protection Agency
  Office of Water
  (WH-4105F)
EPA
May 1994
                                                                       Sheets
     CONTROLLING AGRICULTURAL SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
         How Big is the Problem?

Nonpoint source pollution is the leading source of
water pollution in the United States today. States
have reported that only 56% of assessed river
miles, 43% of assessed  lake acres, and 56% of
assessed estuarine square miles fully support their
designated uses (e.g., fishing, swimming, and
drinking).

The States have also reported that the leading
cause of these impairments is agricul rural nonpoint
source pollution. The States attribute problems in
72% of assessed river miles, 56% of lake acres, and
43% of estuarine square miles to agriculture. Lead-
ing pollutants causing these problems are nutri-
ents from fertilizers and animal wastes, siltation
from soil erosion, and pesticides.
     Agriculture is the leading sourceiof-
     impairment in the Nation's^rw&sl
     and lakes, affecting 72% of fa wi-
     paired river miles and 56%^Jdf im-
     paired lake acres,']• 1.: :':.;:x-:'^::.'S-:-''
   How does the Clinton Administration
       propose to solve  the problem?

To  address these water quality problems, the
Clinton Administration has proposed, as a center-
piece of its Clean Water Initiative to amend the
Clean Water Act, upgrading existing State pro-
grams that address nonpoint source pollution.

The program would be targeted to water quality
problems,

Under the Administration proposal, States would
focus on reducing nonpoint pollution in water-
sheds of impaired, threatened, and special pro-
tection waters  identified by the States and on
protecting all waters from impairment by new
sources.  For these areas, States would imple-
ment best available management measures for
categories of nonpoint sources causing or signifi-
cantly contributing to water quality impairments
or threatened impairments.

The   program  would   be  flexible  and
results-oriented.

With the active assistance of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture  (USDA), the  Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) would publish a guidance
documentprovidingmanagement measures that
would consider the costs and the pollution and
risk  reductions achieved and would be broad
and  flexible enough to allow for appropriate
local tailoring. Site-specific plans and adapta-
tions to local soil and climatic conditions would
be encouraged, providing that the resulting level
of control is no less stringent than that estab-
lished by management measures.

The management measures guidance would set
forth goals to be achieved and would not pre-
scribe that particular practices be used. It would
not tell agricultural producers how to farm or
what water quality practices to apply.

For example, an erosion control measure could set
a goal of minimizing the delivery of sediment
from agricultural lands to  receiving  waters by
applying the erosion control component of the
USDA's conservationmanagementsystem. (These
systems in turn provide a choice of a variety of
practices, such as conservation tillage, strip crop-
ping, contour farming, or terracing.) An animal
waste measure could be  tailored,  based on eco-
nomics, to range from no requirements for the
smallest facilities  to  modest practices  for

-------
medium-size facilities to storage and containment
for the larger facilities.

Similarly, a nutrient management measure could
ask the producer to develop a plan to apply nutri-
ents  at rates necessary to achieve  realistic crop
yields, account for all sources of nutrients (such as
legumes and animal manures), and improve the
timing of application. A pesticide measure could
call on producers to use integrated  pest manage-
ment strategies that apply  pesticides when an
economic benefit to the producer will be achieved.
Similarly flexible and  cost-effective approaches
could be set forth to reduce potential water pollu-
tion  problems from grazing and irrigation prac-
tices.
TJie program would be cost-effective.

The management measures would be written with
great flexibility, allowing the farmer to select prac-
tices that would achieve the goal in the most cost-
effective manner available. Indeed, many of the
available practices to reduceagricultural nonpoint
sources are among the most cost-effective controls
available to help solve our Nation's water quality
problems.  Total annual costs for producers to
implement these measures nationwide are esti-
mated to be between $430 million and $810 mil-
lion. Considerable amounts of Federal funds from
USDA and EPA are available to help producers
implement the measures.  Many States also have
existing funding programs in place to assist pro-
ducers in implementing these same  measures.
Thus, agricultural producers can successfully solve
nonpoint source pollution problems while remain-
ing economically viable and productive.
The program would focus on voluntary action but
be backed by enforcement if voluntary  efforts
should fail.
States would be provided flexibility to rely ini-
tially as much as possible on successful voluntary
approaches.  States would have 71/2 years to
implement their NFS programs. States would be
expected to  have enforceable implementation
mechanisms  in their  nonpoint source manage-
ment programs as a means of motivating volun-
tary activity and to address situations where nec-
essary implementation of measures is clearly not
taking place.

-------
                          L ,ru;od M.IU-S
                          Environmonul
                          Prolcction Agency
   Office of \Vaicr
   4101     ?
EPA
May 1994
                             Wetland Fact Sheet: H.R.1330
The Administration is concerned that H.R. 1330,
the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and
Management Act of 1993, is fundamentally in-
consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Administration Wetlands Plan and would be det-
rimental to wetlands protection.  H.R. 1330, with
relatively minor revisions, is now part of a pro-
posal developed by several Members of the House
Public Works Committee as a substitute to Chair-
man Mineta's Clean Water Act reauthorization
bill, H.R. 3948.

On March 22,1994, the Administration provided
testimony opposing the wetlands categorization,
federal  agency roles, compensation, mapping,
and delineation aspects of H.R. 1330.  The Ad-
ministration asserted that its Wetlands Plan iden-
tifies a combination of legislative and administra-
tive proposals that address provisions in the bill,
but in a manner that is more fair and flexible while
ensuring effective protection of the Nation's valu-
able wetlands.

The Administration's position on H.R. 1330 is
supported by the Association of State Wetland
Managers (ASWM), which analyzed in detail the
bill and rejected its approach. Essentially, they
conclude that there are  twelve major implemen-
tation problems with H.R. 1330; particularly se-
vere are the difficulties posed by the restrictive
delineation criteria, the categorization criteria,
and the compensation scheme.

For example, H.R. 1330 calls for mapping and
categorizing all wetlands "up front"  as either
"high-", "medium-", or "low-value" which would
govern the regulatory response for a specific per-
mitapplication.Whileconcepruallythisapproach
may be appealing, its technical, fiscal and envi-
ronmental  implications make it unworkable.
Mapping the lower 48 States at a scale suitable for
detailed regulatory use would involve a mam-
moth undertaking yielding  nearly 14  million
maps and costing in excess of 5500 million.  In
addition, there is no scientific basis for a nation-
wide ranking of functionally distinct and diverse
wetland types. Finally, an a priori categorization
and ranking approach could further complicate the
Section 404 program by failing to consider the
individual impacts associated with specific projects.

ASWM  determined  H.R. 1330's  compensation
scheme "is  confusing, inequitable, and would be
extremely expensive to implement." The Congres-
sional Budget Office estimates that the cost to the
government to buy all "high-value" wetlands for
thelower 48 Statesalone could cost over $10 billion.
ASWM also points out that this provision "would
(potentially) result in thousands or hundreds of
thousands of small and unmanageable parcels in
federal ownership."

The wetlands delineation criteria in H.R. 1330 are
based on, but more restrictive than, the 1991 pro-
posed delineation manual which, after field testing
and opportunity for public comment, was widely
discredited as technically unsound and unwork-
able in the  field.  ASWM found that  H.R. 1330's
delineation criteria would exclude "many wetland
types with water quality protection, flood control,
and other functions and values important to the
achievement of Clean Water Act goals....This in-
cludes many areas that are universally recognized
as 'true' wetlands."
The Administration Wetlands Plan n 'ognized the
need to deal more effectively with property rights,
and other regulatory concerns. As a result, the Plan
contains provisions that deal  directly with these
issues. The Administration has committed to es-
tablishing a Section  404 administrative  appeals
process, so  landowners can challenge regulatory
decisions without having to go to court. The Ad-
ministration has also committed to more stringent
timeframes on permit decision-making. In addi-
tion, support for advance, comprehensive plan-
ning, greater State and local involvement in wet-
lands regulation, and the elimination of duplica-
tion among federal agencies, particularly with re-
spect to agriculture, will further address these con-
cerns.
  ;: :&io^$>I;^^
                          '

-------
                        Uniicd Slates
                        Environmental
                        Proiection Agency
                    OfficfcofWaicr
                    4101 '      5
                            EPA
                            May 1994
                                                Glean Water Act
                                                 1       Fact Sheets
   The Issue:  Wlien does a government action affecting private property
   amount to a "taking/' and what are the takings implications of wetlands
   regulation?
The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of
private property by the government for a public
use without payment of just compensation.  A
body of la) v has been established by the Supreme
Court (and lower courts) that is used to deter-
mine when government
actions affecting use of
private property amount
to a "taking" of that prop-
erty by the government.
When private property
is "taken" by the govern-
ment,  the  property
owner must be  fairly
compensated.
    The Fifth Amendment
  to the Constitution of the
  United States of America
Initially, the courts rec-
ognized takings claims
based on governmental
action that resulted in a	
physical seizure or occu-
pation  of private property.  The courts subse-
quently ruled that, in certain limited circum-
stances, government regulation affecting private
property also may amount to a taking.

In reviewing these "regulatory" takings cases,
the courts generally apply a balancing test, and
examine the character of the government's ac-
tion and its effect on the property's economic
value.  Government actions for the purpose of
protecting public health and safety, including
many types of actions for environmental protec-
tion, generally will not constitute takings. The
courts  also look at the extent to which the
government's action interferes with the reason-
able, investment-backed expectations of the prop-
erty owner.

In the 1992 decision, Lucas  v. South Carolina
Coastal Council, the U: S. Supreme Court ruled
that a State regulation that deprives a property
owner of aU economically beneficial use of that
     No person shall...be deprived
of...property without due process of law,
 nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
property can be a taking. However, even then a
regulation will not result in a taking if the regula-
tion is consistent with "restrictions that back-
ground principles of the State's law of property
and nuisance already  place upon land  owner-
                          ship."   Some
                          commentators
                          have stated that
                          the Lucas ruling
                          is not  likely to
                          have a signifi-
                          cant effect on en-
                          vironmental
                          regulation,  be-
                          cause it is explic-
                          itly limited to
                          those relatively
                          rare situations
                          where the gov-
                          ernment action
                          denies ajj eco-
nomically beneficial use of the property.

Wetlands and Takings

The presence of wetlands does  not mean that a
property owner cannot undertake any activity on
the property.  In fact, wetlands regulation under
Section 404 does not necessarily even result in a
restriction on use of the site. For example, many
activities are either not regulated at all, explicitly
exempted from regulation, or authorized under
general permits.  Moreover, in situations where
individual permits are required, the Federal agen-
cies can work with permit applicants to design
projects that meet the requirements of the law and
protect the environment and public safety, while
accomplishing the legitimate individual objectives
and protecting the property rights of the applicant.
Overall, more than 95  percent of all projects are
authorized.

-------
                         United States
                         Environmental
                         Protection Agency
  Office of Water
  (WH-4105F)
EPA
May 1994
                                                 Clean Water Act
                                                           Fact Sheets
      MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCE
                    POLLUTION FROM ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
          How Big is the Problem?

Nonpoint source pollution is the leading source of
water pollution in the United States today. States
have reported  that only 56% of assessed river
miles, 43% of assessed lake acres, and  56% of
assessed estuarine square miles fully support their
designated uses (e.g.,  fishing, swimming, and
drinking).

One of the leading sources of water quality impair-
ment is urban runoff.  This category of  sources
includes runoff from impervious surfaces includ-
ing streets and other paved areas that enter a ditch,
pipe, or sewer before  discharging  into  surface
waters. The States have identified urban runoff as
the second largest source of water qualtiy impair-
ment to lakes and estuaries, and the third largest
source of impairment to rivers.

    How does the Clinton Administration
        propose to solve the problem?

To address urban runoff and related water quality
problems caused by nonpoint sources, the Clinton
Administration has proposed, as a centerpiece of
its Clean Water Initiative to amend the Clean
Water Act, upgrading State programs that address
urban runoff and other sources of nonpoint source
pollution. The Clinton proposal would apply to
urban runoff which is not already subject to more
stringent national stormwater regulations under
the national permits program.  For example, con- •
struction of roads and highways that disturb five
acres or more is subject to National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System  stormwater permits
rather than to the nonpoint source program.
The program would be targeted to water quality
problems.
Under the Administration proposal to address
nonpoint sources, States would focus on reducing
nonpoint pollution in watersheds of impaired,
threatened, and special protection waters identi-
fied by the States  and on protecting all waters
from impairment by new sources. For these areas,
States would implement best available manage-
ment measures for categories of nonpoint sources
causingorsignificantlyconrributingto water qual-
ity impairments or threatened impairments.

EPA would provide national management mea-
sures guidance that would consider the costs and
the pollution and risk reductions achieved and
would be broad and flexible enough to allow for
appropriate local tailoring. Site-specific plans and
adaptations to local soil and climatic conditions
would be encouraged, providing that the result-
ing level of control is no less stringent than that
established by management measures.

The management measures guidance would  be
patterned after the guidance published in January
1993 to support the coastal nonpoint source pro-
gram  under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthoriza-
tion Amendments of 1990 ("CZARA"). That guid-
ance sets forth goals to be achieved but does not
prescribe thatparticularpractices be used. It does
not tell local communities how to build their roads
or what water quality practices to apply. Rather,
it sets forth goals to be achieved or factors to  be
considered.

-------
   "Where transportation systems are
   clearly needed, they should be planned
   and executed  iiu'th the protection of
   wetlands, riparian  habitat, coastal
   waters, and ground mid surface ivater
   resources  in mind."
 A Notional Water Agenda _for the 21st Cei
   (Water Quality 2000, November 1992).
The program would be flexible and cost-effective.

For example, the CZARA measures provide that
during and after construction, road builders should
simply "reduce erosion and to the extent practi-
cable, retain sediment onsite."  Following con-
struction, the measure provides a series of choices:
By design or performance, the average annual
loading of suspended solids should be reduced by
80%, or the post-development loadings should be
no greater than pre-development loadings. These
choices, and the focusing of the measure on the
performance level to be achieved ratht.. than the
manner in which it is achieved, ensure that States
and local communities will be able to protect
water quality  from urban runoff in the  most
cost-effective manner available.

Similarly, for operation and maintenance of roads
and highways to control nonpoint source pollu-
tion, the management measure provides simply:
"Incorporate pollution prevention proce^ui es into
the operation and  maintenance of roads,  high-
ways, and bridges to reduce pollution loadings to
surface waters." Decisions on how best to achieve
this goal are left entirely to the States and commu-
nities that operate and maintain these facilities.

EPA worked closely with the Federal Highways
Administration to  assure  that these measures
would be achievable and reasonable and allow for
cost-effective achievement in a variety of geo-
graphical settings.  EPA also assured that  these
measures are consistent with existing State trans-
portation guidelines, such as those established by
the American Association of State High way Trans-
portation Officials.
The  program would focus on voluntary action
but be backed by enforcement if voluntary efforts
should fail.

States would be provided flexibility to rely ini-
tially as much as possible on successful voluntary
approaches. States  would have 71/2 years to
implement their NPS programs. States would be
expected to have enforceable implementation
mechanisms in their nonpoint source manage-
ment programs as a  means of motivating volun-
tary activity and to address situations where nec-
essary implementation of measures is clearly not
taking place.

-------
                        United Siaies
                        Environmental
                        Protection Agency
   Office of
   (WH-4105F)
EPA
                                               Clean  Water Act
                                                         Fact  Sheets
            FEDERAL AND CITIZEN OVERFILING OF STATE ACTION
The  Administration  takes pride in  the
enforcement relationship that exists between
EPA and the 40 States that are approved to
operate the CWA point source permitting
scheme. This relationship is renewed State
by  State  on  a  yearly  basis   through
EPA/State agreements. It is long-standing
EPA policy that States be given the first
opportunity  to take enforcement  action
when   violations  are  discovered.    On
occasion, however, EPA finds it necessary to
take enforcement action even where a State
has taken  action.. It is the Agency's policy
that it will "over-file" a State enforcement
action only where the State action is not
timely or is not an "appropriate" response to
the violations.

The Administration is very concerned about
a provision in the current Clean Water Act
(CWA §309(g)(6)(A))»  added through an
amendment  in 1987, that may bar  the
Federal  government  and  citizens  from
enforcing if a State has already brought an
administrative  penalty  action.   We  are
concerned because this provision denies the
Agency - and citizens - the oversight role
that  was  intended  under  the  Act,  and
because courts have very broadly construed
that   language  of  the  provision vastly
expanding the enforcement bar.  In the
leading adverse decision, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit held that an
enforcement action by  a  State that is not
approved to operate the CWA permitting
and enforcement program, and that imposes
no  penalty will  serve  to  bar  further
enforcement. The Administration believes
that  this case was  wrongly decided,  but
several Federal District Courts have already
followed it.

EPA's ability to take additional enforcement
action in such cases is critical if the Agency
is to carry out its role of overseeing State
implementation of  the  CWA regulatory
program. Though the Agency uses this tool
only rarely, it is a powerful tool for ensuring
that violators are  deterred  and that State
enforcement is adequate.

Citizens were also intended to play a role in
overseeing State water enforcement. When
Congress enacted the  CWA citizen  suit
provision, citizen enforcement was seen as a
valuable supplement to federal  and state
enforcement activities.  Citizens are  often
much closer to the pollution problems that
affect their communities - and therefore are
often in a better position  to act quickly to
stop harmful violations of the law. In  this
regard, where a State action inadequately
addresses  the  CWA  violation  at  hand,
citizens should be  empowered  to -take
additional action to ensure that the violator
does not profit from its violations and is
deterred from future violations of the law.

-------
In order to assure  adequate oversight of
State implementation of the CWA, and to
reverse the broad reading given to the bar
to Federal and citizen enforcement, the
Administration advocates removing the state
enforcement bar.

-------
                        I'm ted Slates
                        Environmental
                        Protection Agency
   Office of
   f>;H--U05F)
EPA
                                               Clean  Water Act
                                                         Fact  Sheets
                                CITIZEN SUITS
Citizen Suit Authority

The authority for citizens to enforce Federal
environmental law has existed for nearly a
quarter of a century.  This authority was
first included in 1970 in the Clean Air Act,
and was included  in the Clean Water Act
when the statute was extensively amended in
1972. It is now an important component of
nearly every environmental statute.

Congress authorized citizen suits for three
primary reasons:  1) to assure that citizens
are able to  protect themselves and their
communities  from  the threats  posed by
pollution; 2) to supplement limited Federal
and State enforcement resources; and 3) to
assure  that when the  EPA or the States
failed to enforce,  a polluter could still be
brought to justice.  Congress viewed citizens
as both partners in  the Federal and State
effort to secure compliance with the point-
source  requirements of the  Act,  and  as
watch-dogs to assure  that violators  who
escaped the EPA/State enforcement net, for
whatever reason,  could still be subject  to
citizen enforcement.

Citizen Enforcement  Has Proven Itself

Over  the  years,  citizens have  proven
themselves  to   be  responsible  CWA
enforcers,  providing   an  indispensable
supplement    to   Federal   and   State
enforcement. Citizen suits have established
a number of the key legal precedents that
the Federal government and States rely on
today for  CWA enforcement.  The  claim
that citizens file numerous "frivolous" suits
under  the CWA  is  simply unfounded.
Moreover, there are mechanisms currently
in place to ensure that citizen suits are used
appropriately,   including  court   rules
penalizing frivolous actions.

The  Administration  believes  that the
American public should be empowered to
protect their health  and environment, and
the  health  and environment   of  their
communities,  from  the  threat  posed  by
illegal environmental pollution.   For this
and many other reasons, the Administration
supports removing existing impediments to
citizen enforcement.

In particular,  the Administration proposes
that the CWA be amended to reverse the
1987 Supreme Court decision in Gwaltnev
of   Smithfield   v.   Chesapeake  Bay
Foundation, which restricted citizen suits to
instances  in   which  the  violations are
"ongoing" at the time the citizens file their
complaint.   This reading of  the  CWA
inappropriately  restricts   the  ability  of
citizens to enforce for past violations of the
CWA.  It removes the deterrent threat of
penalties  for  past  violations  from any
polluter who can cease its violations in the
period between the  required notice under
the CWA and the date a citizen may file its

-------
lawsuit.   In effect, a violator  may avoid
penalties  for past violations,  regardless of
their seriousness,  if  it  can  correct  the
violating  conduct  before  the  citizen is'
allowed to sue.

However,  in recognition of  the  potential
injustice  associated with imposing large
penalties  for long-past violations that were
few  and   promptly   corrected,   the
Administration proposes amending the  Act
to require a court  • when determining the
amount of a penalty to  impose for wholly
past  violations  -  to   consider  several
equitable  factors related to the good faith of
the  violator both  before  and  after  the
violation.

        Citizen Suits and Farmers

The  Administration's    proposals   for
enhancing citizen enforcement authority do
not expand citizen authority to allow citizen
suits against farmers. Under current law, a
very small set of farming  operations  are
classified  as "point sources" (such as certain
concentrated animal feeding operations) and
are therefore already subject to citizen suits.
The vast  majority  of farming  operations
result in non-point source discharges which
are  not now, and  will not be, subject to
citizen suits.  The Administration does  not
propose authorizing citizens to sue for  any
non-point source violations.
                                                                          -Y:': u ;•,-•;• 3.rir:

-------
FACT SHEET       ALASKA WETLANDS INITIATIVE  	  May 1994

The completion of the Alaska Wetlands Initiative and the withdrawal of the 1992
proposed "Alaska 1%" rulemaking implement two recommendations regarding Federal
wetlands policies included in the Clinton Administration's August 24, 1993, fair, flexible,
and effective approach to protecting America's wetlands.  The final Summary Report of
the Alaska Wetlands Initiative details the environmentally appropriate actions that are
being taken to ensure regulatory flexibility in protecting Alaska's wetlands.  The
proposed rule, if promulgated, would have excepted all wetlands in the State from
National mitigation requirements.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army   •••"••••••^••i
Corps of Engineers in Alaska co-chaired the seven-          Co-chairs: EPA and Corps
month Initiative, that was developed in consultation
with a diverse and comprehensive group of Alaskan       -  „* i
                      ,         °   *                 commercial
stakeholders and the public, and responds to             Development
concerns of Alaskans regarding wetlands regulation in     Environment
the State. The public was invited to attend all       .    Rwe*?r  Qagmm
stakeholder meetings,  submit written comments, and      SS*        ^
participate in a Statewide teleconference linking 20       oo and Gas
locations throughout Alaska.                           SpoitfisMng
                                                     State of Alaska
Stakeholders and the public identified concerns with      y^ p^ ^ wadKfe Service/
the wetlands program, focusing on how circumstances      National Marine Fisheries Service
in Alaska, such as climate and the extent of wetlands,     Department of Energy
affect implementation of regulatory requirements in     ••••^•^••I^MBI^MBBM
the State.
Conclusions in the Report are built upon the factual information and technical data
identified during the Initiative. Strong agreement among the Federal agencies provides
the basis to implement the actions in a manner that ensures effective protection of
Alaska's valuable wetlands while providing appropriate regulatory flexibility to reflect
circumstances in Alaska.

Key actions in the Summary Report include:
• implementation of abbreviated permit processing procedures for the construction of
water, wastewater, and sanitation facilities in wetlands in Alaskan villages
• continued development of general permits, which efficiently allow activities with
minimal impacts to proceed without the need for individual permit authorization
• strengthening relationships with the State, local governments, and Native corporations
and villages through such measures as establishing written partnerships regarding the
regulatory program and placing greater emphasis on providing assistance for local
wetlands planning mechanisms as they relate to the regulatory program
• clarifying "practicability" and "flexibility" considerations that allow implementation  of
the regulatory program to reflect circumstances in Alaska

Copies of the Report may be obtained from the EPA Wetlands Hotline: (800) 832-7828.

-------
                       United Scales
                       Environmental
                       Protection Agency
   Office of Water
   (WH-4105F)
EPA
                                               Clean Water Act
                                                     r  FactfSiieets
                      APPROPRIATE INJUNCITVE RELIEF
The Clean Water Act currently allows the
United States to commence a civil action for
"appropriate injunctive relief when there
are CWA violations.  Courts have long had
the power to grant broad equitable relief,
and EPA and the Department of Justice
have  taken  the position  that appropriate
relief may include an order requiring clean-
up  of the conditions resulting  from the
violation.  However, because the issue is not
squarely  addressed in either  the  CWA or
controlling  judicial   precedent,   the
Administration  supports   legislative
confirmation of the kinds of injunctive relief
that a court may order as a result of a CWA
violation.    This  clarification  will  avoid
extensive  litigation   over the  scope  of
appropriate relief.

Assertions that this proposal  represents an
expansion of existing law are erroneous.  In
numerous CWA cases involving the illegal
discharge of fill  material into wetlands,
courts  have  ordered  remediation  and
restoration of the affected waters. See erg^
U.S. v. Bradshaw. 541 F. Supp. 880 (D.Md.
1981) and U.S. v. Campiatti. 615 F.Supp.
116 (D.NJ. 1984).   In  U.S. v.  Outboard
Marine  Corp.. 549  F.Supp. 1036,  1043
(N.D.I11. 1982),  the  court indicated that
remediation of contaminated sediments is
within the scope of the relief available to a
court  in  Clean  Water  Act cases.    In
addition,  upon request from the  Senate
Environment and Public Works staff, the
.Congressional 'Research  Service  recently
investigated this  question and concluded.
that the proposed amendment is merely a
clarification of existing law.

Using  these  authorities,  and  the  CWA
"appropriate relief language, EPA and the
Department of Justice  have  filed cases
seeking sediment remediation as an element
of relief (see complaints in United States v.
Inland Steel. Civ. No. 90-0328, N.D.  Ind.
and United  States v.  Hammond  Sanitary
District. Civ. No. 2:93CV 225JM (N.D.Ind.),
and has reached consent decree's providing
for sediment remediation as an element of
the    defendant's   injunctive  obligations
(Inland Steel and United- States v.  USX
Corp.. Civ. No. H88-558 (N.D. Ind.).'While
these  cases  also utilized other authorities
(although not Superfund), the CWA was an
essential element of the claim.

Using the CWA to obtain cleanup can have.-
dramatic environmental  benefits.   EPA's
successful   efforts  to  obtain  sediment
remediation in Northern Indiana has already
resulted in substantial  enhancement of the
water quality in the Grand Calumet River,
which  historically has  been a pipeline of
pollution into Lake Michigan.

It is entirely appropriate that  violators be
held responsible to clean up and correct any
environmental harm that has resulted from
their CWA violations.  Equity  dictates that
those  harmed by the actions of another
should be made whole. It is the American
public that  is harmed when  a  person
violates the CWA and thereby harms. the

-------
envi&npnt, and the American public will
Jtie\$$dfe$j? only if  the violator is
         to^leairiup its mess.

-------