Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Copeland, Claudia" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Drought Legislation: Comparison of Selected Provisions in H.R. 2898 and S. 1894 [September 4, 2015]
From the Summary: "Several western states are experiencing extreme, and in some cases exceptional, drought conditions. The persistence and intensity of the current drought has received considerable attention from Congress. To date, federal legislative proposals to address drought have focused on the federal role in managing water supplies, supporting drought-related projects and programs, and conserving fish species and their habitat. […] This report provides a high-level comparison of S. 1894 (as introduced) and H.R. 2898 (as passed by the House). It identifies comparable issue areas addressed in both bills and discusses selected commonalities and differences between those provisions. It also summarizes selected provisions in each bill that are not addressed in the other bill."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Stern, Charles V.; Sheikh, Pervaze A.; Cody, Betsy A. . . .
2015-09-04
-
EPA and the Army Corps' Rule to Define 'Waters of the United States' [September 1, 2015]
"On May 27, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly announced a final rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The rule revises regulations that have been in place for more than 25 years. Revisions are being made in light of 2001 and 2006 Supreme Court rulings that interpreted the regulatory scope of the CWA more narrowly than the agencies and lower courts were then doing, and created uncertainty about the appropriate scope of waters protected under the CWA. According to the agencies, the new rule revises the existing administrative definition of 'waters of the United States' consistent with the CWA, legal rulings, the agencies' expertise and experience, and science concerning the interconnectedness of tributaries, wetlands, and other waters and effects of these connections on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters. Waters that are 'jurisdictional' are subject to the multiple regulatory requirements of the CWA. Non-jurisdictional waters are not subject to those requirements. This report describes the final revised rule--which the agencies refer to as the Clean Water Rule--and includes a table comparing the existing regulatory language that defines 'waters of the United States' with the revisions. The rule is particularly focused on clarifying the regulatory status of surface waters located in isolated places in a landscape. It does not modify some categories of waters that are jurisdictional under existing rules (traditional navigable waters, interstate waters and wetlands, the territorial seas, and impoundments). The rule also lists waters that would not be jurisdictional, such as prior converted cropland and certain ditches. It makes no change to existing statutory exclusions, such as CWA permit exemptions for normal farming and ranching activities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-09-01
-
EPA's Vessel General Permits: Background and Issues [August 28, 2015]
"In November 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed two Clean Water Act (CWA) permits to regulate certain types of vessel discharges into U.S. waters. The proposed permits would replace a single Vessel General Permit (VGP) issued in 2008 that was due to expire in December 2013. As proposed, the permits would apply to approximately 71,000 large domestic and foreign vessels and perhaps as many as 138,000 small vessels. This universe of regulated entities is diverse as well as large, consisting of tankers, freighters, barges, cruise ships and other passenger vessels, and commercial fishing vessels. Their discharges are similarly diverse, including among other pollutants aquatic nuisance species (ANS), nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, metals, and toxic chemical compounds that can have a broad array of effects on aquatic species and human health, many of which can be harmful. […] Congressional interest in this topic has been evident for some time. In 2008 Congress enacted two bills to exempt certain vessels from a CWA permit requirement, thus restricting the population of vessels subject to the VGP. One was a permanent permit moratorium for recreational vessels of all sizes. The other act was a temporary permit moratorium for small commercial vessels and commercial fishing vessels, which was extended twice by Congress and would have expired December 18, 2014, had Congress not enacted an additional three-year extension in S. 2444. In the 114th Congress, bills addressing the temporary permit moratorium for small vessels and regulation of ballast water discharges have been introduced (S. 373/H.R. 980 and S. 371). The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 373 in February; the committee also included provisions of this bill in S. 1611."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-08-28
-
Gold King Mine Spill May Renew Interest in 'Good Samaritan' Legislation [August 27, 2015]
"On August 5, an accidental spill from the Gold King Mine, a long-abandoned gold mine site in Colorado, released an estimated 3 million gallons of acid mine drainage (AMD) wastewater into a tributary of the Animas River. From there, the contaminated wastewater migrated downstream to the San Juan River into New Mexico, Utah, and tribal lands."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-08-27
-
Microbeads: An Emerging Water Quality Issue [July 20, 2015]
"For decades, water quality professionals have faced the challenge of controlling a variety of conventional and nonconventional pollutants (e.g., nutrients and suspended solids, oil and grease) and toxic chemical compounds that can harm aquatic life in lakes, streams, and coastal waters, as well as public health. Microbeads are contaminants of recent and growing concern. Microbeads are synthetic particles made of either polyethylene or polypropylene plastic. They are used as abrasives and exfoliants in hundreds of consumer and personal care products such as facial scrubs, shampoos and soaps, lip gloss, deodorants, and toothpaste. The particles are tiny--between 50 and 500 micrometers in diameter (the latter is about the size of the period on a printed page), and a single product can contain hundreds of thousands of microbeads. A number of companies are voluntarily removing microbeads from their products, and some states--eight so far--have passed laws to ban manufacture and sale of products with microbeads. At issue is whether federal regulation to control or ban microbeads is needed. […] Microplastic debris includes microbeads and small particles that result from the breakdown of plastic bottles and other containers. In the aquatic environment, marine mammals, birds, and fish and shellfish cannot distinguish microplastics from food. Once in the food chain, microbeads may threaten aquatic life and public health, but risks are not well understood. The particles themselves may contain toxins. Other toxins in waters, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, are attracted to microbeads, which can act like sponges, absorbing the chemicals and potentially adding to environmental concerns. Particles that enter water supply systems are not removed by drinking-water treatment technologies."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-07-20
-
EPA and the Army Corps' Proposed 'Waters of the United States' Rule: Congressional Response and Options [July 9, 2015]
"On May 27, 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revising regulations that define the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges to waters under CWA jurisdiction, such as the addition of pollutants from factories or sewage treatment plants and the dredging and filling of spoil material through mining or excavation, require a CWA permit. The rule was proposed in 2014 in light of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 that created uncertainty about the geographic limits of waters that are and are not protected by the CWA. The rule, which becomes effective August 28, 2015, replaces EPA-Corps guidance that has governed permitting decisions since the Court's rulings. According to EPA and the Corps, their intent in proposing the rule was to clarify CWA jurisdiction, not expand it. Nevertheless, the rule has been extremely controversial, especially with groups representing property owners, land developers, and agriculture, who contend that it represents a massive federal overreach beyond the agencies' statutory authority. Most state and local officials are supportive of clarifying the extent of CWA-regulated waters, but some are concerned that the rule could impose costs on states and localities as their own actions become subject to new requirements. Most environmental advocacy groups welcomed the proposal, which would more clearly define U.S. waters that are subject to CWA protections, but beyond that general support, some in these groups favor an even stronger rule. The final rule contains a number of changes to respond to criticisms of the proposal, but the revisions may not satisfy all critics of the rule."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-07-09
-
Clean Water Act Section 401: Background and Issues [July 2, 2015]
"Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will comply with the act, including state-established water quality standard requirements. Disputes have arisen over the states' exercise of this authority in protecting water quality. For the most part, the debate over the Section 401 certification issue has been between states and hydropower interests. A 1994 Supreme Court decision, which upheld the states' authority in this area, dismayed development and hydropower interest groups. The Court revisited these issues in a 2006 ruling that unanimously upheld the authority of states to condition hydropower licenses by exercising Section 401. The dispute between states and industry groups about Section 401 authority has been a legislative issue on several occasions, but Congress has not modified the provision's scope. In the 114th Congress, Senate and House committees are considering a number of energy policy proposals, including legislation that some states believe could impinge on states' authority under CWA Section 401 concerning hydropower projects. In addition, there has been interest in clarifying whether Section 401 certification applies to nonpoint source discharges, such as rainfall runoff, as well as point source discharges from pipes or ditches. This question was raised in lawsuits in Oregon, where a federal court ruled in 1998 and again in 2008 that Section 401 does not apply to nonpoint source discharges. Still, some interests continue to favor a broad reading of 401 that would apply to both nonpoint and point sources of pollutant discharges."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-07-02
-
EPA and the Army Corps' 'Waters of the United States' Rule: Congressional Response and Options [June 29, 2015]
"On May 27, 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revising regulations that define the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges to waters under CWA jurisdiction, such as the addition of pollutants from factories or sewage treatment plants and the dredging and filling of spoil material through mining or excavation, require a CWA permit. The rule was proposed in 2014 in light of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 that created uncertainty about the geographic limits of waters that are and are not protected by the CWA. The rule, which becomes effective August 15, 2015, replaces EPA-Corps guidance that has governed permitting decisions since the Court's rulings. According to EPA and the Corps, their intent in proposing the rule was to clarify CWA jurisdiction, not expand it. Nevertheless, the rule has been extremely controversial, especially with groups representing property owners, land developers, and agriculture, who contend that it represents a massive federal overreach beyond the agencies' statutory authority. Most state and local officials are supportive of clarifying the extent of CWA-regulated waters, but some are concerned that the rule could impose costs on states and localities as their own actions become subject to new requirements. Most environmental advocacy groups welcomed the proposal, which would more clearly define U.S. waters that are subject to CWA protections, but beyond that general support, some in these groups favor an even stronger rule. The final rule contains a number of changes to respond to criticisms of the proposal, but the revisions may not satisfy all critics of the rule."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-06-29
-
EPA and the Army Corps' Proposed Rule to Define 'Waters of the United States' [June 29, 2015]
"This report describes the final revised rule--which the agencies refer to as the Clean Water Rule (CWA)--and includes a table comparing the existing regulatory language that defines 'waters of the United States' with the revisions. The rule is particularly focused on clarifying the regulatory status of surface waters located in isolated places in a landscape. It does not modify some categories of waters that are jurisdictional under existing rules (traditional navigable waters, interstate waters and wetlands, the territorial seas, and impoundments). The rule also lists waters that would not be jurisdictional, such as prior converted cropland and certain ditches. It makes no change to existing statutory exclusions, such as CWA permit exemptions for normal farming and ranching activities. The rule will replace EPA-Corps guidance that was issued in 2003 and 2008, which has guided agency interpretation of the Court's rulings but also has caused considerable confusion. Much of the controversy since the Supreme Court rulings has focused on the degree to which isolated waters and small streams are jurisdictional. Under the EPA-Corps guidance, many of these waters have required case-specific evaluation to determine if jurisdiction applies. Under the final rule, some of these waters would continue to need case-specific review, but fewer than under the existing agency guidance documents. The final rule also explicitly excludes specified waters from the definition of 'waters of the United States' (e.g., prior converted croplands, stormwater management systems, and groundwater)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-06-29
-
EPA and the Army Corps' Proposed 'Waters of the United States' Rule: Congressional Response and Options [May 26, 2015]
"In April 2014, the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly proposed to amend the existing rules that define the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges to waters under CWA jurisdiction, such as the addition of pollutants from factories or sewage treatment plants and the dredging and filling of spoil material through mining or excavation, require a CWA permit. The rule was proposed in light of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 that created uncertainty about the geographic limits of waters that are and are not protected by the CWA. The rule would replace EPA-Corps guidance that has governed permitting decisions since the Court's rulings. According to EPA and the Corps, their intent was to clarify CWA jurisdiction, not expand it. Nevertheless, the proposal has been extremely controversial, especially with groups representing property owners, land developers, and agriculture, who contend that it represents a massive federal overreach beyond the agencies' statutory authority. Most state and local officials are supportive of clarifying the extent of CWA-regulated waters, but some are concerned that the rule could impose costs on states and localities as their own actions become subject to new requirements. Most environmental advocacy groups welcomed the proposal, which would more clearly define U.S. waters that are subject to CWA protections, but beyond that general support, some in these groups favor an even stronger rule."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-05-26
-
EPA and the Army Corps' Proposed Rule to Define 'Waters of the United States' [March 20, 2015]
From the report summary: "On March 25, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly announced a proposed rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposal would revise regulations that have been in place for more than 25 years. Revisions are proposed in light of 2001 and 2006 Supreme Court rulings that interpreted the regulatory scope of the CWA more narrowly than previously, but created uncertainty about the precise effect of the Court's decisions. According to the agencies, the proposed rule would revise the existing administrative definition of 'waters of the United States' consistent with legal rulings and science concerning the interconnectedness of tributaries, wetlands, and other waters and effects of these connections on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters. Waters that are 'jurisdictional' are subject to the multiple regulatory requirements of the CWA. Nonjurisdictional waters are not subject to those requirements. This report describes the proposed rule--which the agencies refer to as the Clean Water Rule-- and includes a table comparing the existing regulatory language that defines 'waters of the United States' with the proposed revisions. The proposal is particularly focused on clarifying the regulatory status of waters located in isolated places in a landscape. It does not modify some categories of waters that currently are jurisdictional by rule (traditional navigable waters, interstate waters and wetlands, the territorial seas, and impoundments). The proposed rule would replace EPA-Corps guidance that was issued in 2003 and 2008, which has guided agency interpretation of the Court's rulings but also has caused considerable confusion."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-03-20
-
Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict? [March 20, 2015]
"This report provides background on the emerging conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). For the more than 30 years since they were enacted, there had been little apparent conflict between them. But their relationship has recently been challenged in several arenas, including the federal courts and regulatory proceedings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this report, a brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest. EPA's efforts to clarify its policy in this area are discussed, including a regulation issued in 2006 that was subsequently vacated by a federal court, as well as possible options for EPA and Congress to address the issues further. FIFRA governs the labeling, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides. Its objective is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides. It establishes a nationally uniform labeling system requiring the registration of all pesticides sold in the United States, and requiring users to comply with the national label. The CWA creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme to control the discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters; the discharge of pollutants without a permit violates the act."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-03-20
-
Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs [March 18, 2015]
"Although the federal government has played a significant role in developing water quality regulations and standards for municipal and industrial (M&I) water use, it historically has provided a relatively small percentage of the funding for construction of water supply and treatment facilities for M&I uses. Yet, several programs exist to assist communities with development of water supply and treatment projects, and it appears that Congress is more frequently being asked to authorize direct financial and technical assistance for developing or treating water supplies for M&I use. This report provides background information on the types of water supply and wastewater treatment 'projects' traditionally funded by the federal government and the several existing 'programs' to assist communities with water supply and wastewater recycling and treatment. These projects and programs are found primarily within the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). […] Federal funding for the programs and projects discussed in this report varies greatly. For example, in FY2015 Congress provided $907 million in appropriations for grants to states under EPA's State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program for drinking water facilities and $1.45 billion for EPA's SRF program for wastewater facilities; funds appropriated for the USDA's rural water and waste disposal grant and loan programs are $451 million for FY2015; HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds (used partly but not exclusively for water and wastewater projects) are $3.07 billion for FY2015."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Copeland, Claudia; Cody, Betsy A. . . .
2015-03-18
-
Funding for EPA Water Infrastructure: A Fact Sheet [February 3, 2015]
"Federal funding to assist communities with capital projects to meet the water-related goals and requirements of federal laws has been provided through programs in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and also, more recently, through a program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. This report provides a table showing budget requests and appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) water infrastructure assistance programs under these two laws since 1973. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-845) established a grant program to assist localities with planning and design work and authorized loans for treatment plant construction. In subsequent amendments, federal assistance increased and a construction grant program replaced the loan program. In the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500, popularly known as the Clean Water Act), Congress established the first national standards for sewage treatment and significantly increased federal funding to help communities meet the law's standards. The most recent comprehensive CWA amendments were enacted in 1987 (P.L. 100-4). That legislation authorized $18 billion over nine years for wastewater treatment plant construction, through a combination of the traditional Title II grant program and a new State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds (SRF) program. Under the SRF program, federal capitalization grants are provided through appropriations as seed money for state-administered loans to construct sewage treatment plants and other water quality projects. Local communities, in turn, repay loans to the state, not the federal government. Under the 1987 amendments, the SRF program was phased in beginning in FY1989 and entirely replaced the previous grant program in FY1991."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-02-03
-
EPA's Vessel General Permits: Background and Issues [January 29, 2015]
"In November 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed two Clean Water Act (CWA) permits to regulate certain types of vessel discharges into U.S. waters. The proposed permits would replace a single Vessel General Permit (VGP) issued in 2008 that was due to expire in December 2013. As proposed, the permits would apply to approximately 71,000 large domestic and foreign vessels and perhaps as many as 138,000 small vessels. […] EPA proposed two permits, one for large vessels to replace the 2008 VGP, and one for smaller vessels covered by a congressionally enacted temporary moratorium. Both were proposed well in advance of the VGP's expiration to provide ample time for the regulated community to prepare for new requirements. On March 28, 2013, EPA issued a final version of the VGP for large vessels. It took effect December 19, 2013. The permit for smaller vessels, the sVGP, was issued on September 10, 2014, and was scheduled to take effect on December 19. […] The principal benefits of the permit will be reduced risk of introducing ANS [aquatic nuisance species] into U.S. waters and enhanced environmental quality resulting from reduced pollutant discharges, but the magnitude of benefits is not calculable, according to EPA. The agency acknowledged significant uncertainty about several assumptions affecting estimated costs of the permit. The revised VGP raises two key issues. One concerns inclusion of specific numeric ballast water discharge limits in the permit. At issue had been whether EPA would propose more stringent numeric limits, as some environmental groups have favored and a few states have already adopted. A second issue concerns the role of states in regulating vessel discharges."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-01-29
-
Water Quality Issues in the 114th Congress: An Overview [January 21, 2015]
"Much progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals that Congress established in 1972 in the Clean Water Act (CWA) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. However, long-standing problems persist, and new problems have emerged. Water quality problems are diverse, ranging from pollution runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse or 'nonpoint' sources, to toxic substances discharged from factories and sewage treatment plants. […] Programs that regulate activities in wetlands have been of particular interest recently, especially CWA Section 404, which has been criticized by landowners for intruding on private land-use decisions and imposing excessive economic burdens. Environmentalists view this regulatory program as essential for maintaining the health of wetland ecosystems, and they are concerned about court rulings that have narrowed regulatory protection of wetlands. […] On March 25, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule intended to clarify jurisdictional issues, but interpretive questions about the proposal remain controversial inside and outside of Congress. The agencies expect to issue a final rule by April 2015. […] House and Senate committees have approved bills to reauthorize CWA assistance on several occasions since the 107th Congress, but, for various reasons, no legislation other than appropriations was enacted. At issue has been the role of the federal government in assisting states and cities in meeting needs to rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater treatment systems, especially in light of capital costs that are projected to be nearly $300 billion over the next 20 years. […]"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-01-21
-
Water Quality Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview [January 8, 2015]
"Much progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals that Congress established 40 years ago in the Clean Water Act (CWA) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. However, long-standing problems persist, and new problems have emerged. Water quality problems are diverse, ranging from pollution runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse or 'nonpoint' sources, to toxic substances discharged from factories and sewage treatment plants. There is little agreement among stakeholders about what solutions are needed and whether new legislation is required to address the nation's remaining water pollution problems. For some time, efforts to comprehensively amend the CWA have stalled as interests have debated whether and exactly how to change the law. Congress has instead focused legislative attention on enacting narrow bills to extend or modify selected CWA programs, but not any comprehensive proposals. For several years, the most prominent legislative water quality issue has concerned financial aid for municipal wastewater treatment projects. House and Senate committees have approved bills to reauthorize CWA assistance on several occasions since the 107th Congress, but, for various reasons, no legislation other than appropriations has been enacted. At issue has been the role of the federal government in assisting states and cities in meeting needs to rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater treatment plants, especially in light of capital costs that are projected to be nearly $300 billion over the next 20 years. Congress agreed to legislation that creates a pilot program to provide federal loans for wastewater infrastructure (H.R. 3080/P.L. 113-121). The same legislation also revises certain of the water infrastructure provisions of the CWA."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2015-01-08
-
EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track? [January 8, 2015]
"Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution control statutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules. The House conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th and 113th Congresses, and approved several bills that would overturn specific regulations or limit the agency's authority. Particular attention has been paid to the Clean Air Act, but there has also been congressional scrutiny on other environmental statutes and regulations implemented by EPA. With Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, the 114th Congress is expected to accelerate oversight activities of the Administration's initiatives and renew efforts to rein in EPA. Environmental groups and other supporters of the agency disagree that EPA has overreached. Many of them believe that the agency is, in fact, moving in the right direction, including taking action on significant issues that had been long delayed or ignored in the past. In several cases, environmental advocates would like the regulatory actions to be stronger. EPA states that critics' focus on the cost of controls obscures the benefits of new regulations, which, it estimates, far exceed the costs. It maintains that pollution control is an important source of economic activity, exports, and American jobs, as well. Further, the agency and its supporters say that EPA is carrying out the mandates detailed by Congress in the federal environmental statutes."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarthy, James E.; Copeland, Claudia
2015-01-08
-
Air Quality Issues and Animal Agriculture: A Primer [December 22, 2014]
"From an environmental quality standpoint, much of the public and policy interest in animal agriculture has focused on impacts on water resources, because animal waste, if not properly managed, can harm water quality through surface runoff, direct discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and groundwater. A more recent issue is the contribution of air emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs), enterprises where animals are raised in confinement. This report provides background on the latter issue. AFOs can affect air quality through emissions of gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and odor. These pollutants and compounds have a number of environmental and human health effects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-12-22
-
EPA and the Army Corps' Proposed Rule to Define 'Waters of the United States' [November 21, 2014]
"On March 25, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly proposed a rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposal would revise regulations that have been in place for more than 25 years. Revisions are proposed in light of 2001 and 2006 Supreme Court rulings that interpreted the regulatory scope of the CWA more narrowly than previously, but created uncertainty about the precise effect of the Court's decisions. […]This report describes the proposed rule and includes a table comparing the existing regulatory language that defines 'waters of the United States' with the proposed revisions. The proposal is particularly focused on clarifying the regulatory status of waters located in isolated places in a landscape. It does not modify some categories of waters that currently are jurisdictional by rule (traditional navigable waters, interstate waters and wetlands, the territorial seas, and impoundments). The proposed rule would replace EPA-Corps guidance that was issued in 2003 and 2008, which has guided agency interpretation of the Court's rulings but also has caused considerable confusion."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-11-21
-
Rural Water Supply and Sewer Systems: Background Information [November 5, 2014]
"The Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act impose requirements regarding drinking water quality and wastewater treatment in rural areas. Approximately 27% of the U.S. population lives in areas defined by the Census Bureau as rural. Many rural communities need to complete water and waste disposal projects to improve the public health and environmental conditions of their citizens. Funding needs are high (more than $88 billion, according to state surveys). Several federal programs assist rural communities in meeting these requirements. In dollar terms, the largest are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, but they do not focus solely on rural areas. The Department of Agriculture's grant and loan programs support significant financial activity and are directed solely at rural areas. Meeting infrastructure funding needs of rural areas efficiently and effectively is likely to remain an issue of considerable congressional interest."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-11-05
-
Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA's Response to the 'Waterkeeper Alliance' Court Decision on Regulation of CAFOs [November 3, 2014]
From the Introduction: "This report describes major features of the 2003 CAFO [confined animal feeding operations] rule. It discusses the parts of the 2003 rule that were addressed in the federal court's 2005 decision and EPA's response, as reflected in the 2008 revised regulation. It then describes legal challenges to the 2008 rule and the federal court's March 2011 ruling. The report also provides an overview of perspectives of key interest groups-- the livestock and poultry industry, states, and environmental advocates--on these issues."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-11-03
-
Water Infrastructure Projects Designated in EPA Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications [October 30, 2014]
"Designating funds within appropriations legislation for specified projects or locations has been a way for Congress to help communities meet needs to build and upgrade water infrastructure systems, whose estimated future funding needs exceed $630 billion. Such legislative action has often been popularly referred to as earmarking. This report discusses appropriations for water infrastructure programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), focusing on such designations in the account that funds these programs. Information on the programmatic history of EPA involvement in assisting wastewater treatment and drinking water projects is provided in two appendixes. Congressional appropriators began the practice of supplementing appropriations for the primary Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) assistance programs with grants for individually designated projects in FY1989. These designated project grants are often referred to as earmarks, or as STAG [State and Tribal Assistance Grants] grants. Since 1989, of the $67 billion appropriated to EPA for water infrastructure assistance, $7.4 billion has gone to designated project grants. Beginning in FY2000, appropriators awarded such grants to a larger total number of projects, resulting in more communities receiving such assistance, but at the same time receiving smaller amounts of funds, on average."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-10-30
-
Clean Water Act: Summary of the Law [October 30, 2014]
"The principal law governing pollution of the nation's surface waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act. Originally enacted in 1948, it was totally revised by amendments in 1972 that gave the act its current dimensions. The 1972 legislation spelled out ambitious programs for water quality improvement that have since been expanded and are still being implemented by industries and municipalities. This report presents a summary of the law, describing the statute without discussing its implementation. Other CRS [Congressional Research Service] reports discuss implementation, including CRS Report R42883, 'Water Quality Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview', and numerous products cited in that report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-10-30
-
Ocean Dumping Act: A Summary of the Law [October 30, 2014]
"The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act has two basic aims: to regulate intentional ocean disposal of materials, and to authorize related research. Permit and enforcement provisions of the law are often referred to as the Ocean Dumping Act. The basic provisions of the act have remained virtually unchanged since 1972, when it was enacted to establish a comprehensive waste management system to regulate disposal or dumping of all materials into marine waters that are within U.S. jurisdiction, although a number of new authorities have been added. This report presents a summary of the law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-10-30
-
Allocation of Wastewater Treatment Assistance: Formula and Other Changes [October 30, 2014]
"Congress established a statutory formula governing distribution of financial aid for municipal wastewater treatment in the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972. Since then, Congress has modified the formula and incorporated other eligibility changes five times. Federal funds are provided to states through annual appropriations according to the statutory formula to assist local governments in constructing wastewater treatment projects in compliance with federal standards. The most recent formula change, enacted in 1987, continues to apply to distribution of federal grants to capitalize state revolving loan funds (SRFs) for similar activities. The current state-by-state allotment is a complex formulation consisting basically of two elements, state population and 'need.' The latter refers to states' estimates of capital costs for wastewater projects necessary for compliance with the act. Surveys of funding needs have been done since the 1960s and became an element of distributing CWA funds in 1972. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in consultation with states has prepared 15 clean water needs surveys since then (the most recent was released in 2010) to provide information to policymakers on the nation's total funding needs, as well as needs for certain types of projects. This report describes the formula and eligibility changes adopted by Congress since 1972, revealing the interplay and decisionmaking by Congress on factors to include in the formula. Two types of trends and institutional preferences can be discerned in these actions. First, there are differences over the use of 'need' and population factors in the allocation formula itself. Over time, the weighting and preference given to certain factors in the allocation formula have become increasingly complex and difficult to discern. Second, there is a gradual increase in restrictions on types of wastewater treatment projects eligible for federal assistance."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-10-30
-
Water Infrastructure Financing: Proposals to Create a Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program [October 23, 2014]
"Policy makers have recently been considering several legislative options to help finance water infrastructure projects, including projects to build and upgrade wastewater and drinking water treatment systems. This report examines one particular option, a 'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act,' or WIFIA, program, which Congress included in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA). As enacted (P.L. 113-121), the legislation creates a WIFIA pilot program based on provisions in Senate-passed S. 601 with some additions and modifications. H.R. 3080 as passed by the House did not include similar provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-10-23
-
EPA and the Army Corps' Proposed Rule to Define 'Waters of the United States' [October 9, 2014]
"On March 25, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly proposed a rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposal would revise regulations that have been in place for more than 25 years. Revisions are proposed in light of 2001 and 2006 Supreme Court rulings that interpreted the regulatory scope of the CWA more narrowly than previously, but created uncertainty about the precise effect of the Court's decisions. In 2011, EPA and the Corps proposed guidance on policies for determining CWA jurisdiction to replace guidance issued in 2003 and 2008; all were intended to lessen confusion over the Court's rulings. The 2011 proposed guidance was extremely controversial, with some contending that it represented an overreach beyond the agencies' statutory authority. Most environmental groups welcomed the proposed guidance, although some would have preferred a stronger document. The 2014 proposed rule would replace the existing guidance, which remains in effect because the 2011 proposed guidance was not finalized. According to the agencies, the proposed rule would revise the existing administrative definition of 'waters of the United States' consistent with legal rulings and science concerning the interconnectedness of tributaries, wetlands, and other waters and effects of these connections on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-10-09
-
Water Quality Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview [October 2, 2014]
"Much progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals that Congress established 40 years ago in the Clean Water Act (CWA) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. However, long-standing problems persist, and new problems have emerged. Water quality problems are diverse, ranging from pollution runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse or 'nonpoint' sources, to toxic substances discharged from factories and sewage treatment plants. There is little agreement among stakeholders about what solutions are needed and whether new legislation is required to address the nation's remaining water pollution problems. For some time, efforts to comprehensively amend the CWA have stalled as interests have debated whether and exactly how to change the law. Congress has instead focused legislative attention on enacting narrow bills to extend or modify selected CWA programs, but not any comprehensive proposals. For several years, the most prominent legislative water quality issue has concerned financial aid for municipal wastewater treatment projects. House and Senate committees have approved bills to reauthorize CWA assistance on several occasions since the 107 th Congress, but, for various reasons, no legislation other than appropriations has been enacted. At issue has been the role of the federal government in assisting states and cities in meeting needs to rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater treatment plants, especially in light of capital costs that are projected to be nearly $300 billion over the next 20 years."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-10-02
-
EPA and the Army Corps' Proposed Rule to Define 'Waters of the United States' [September 10, 2014]
"On March 25, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly proposed a rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposal would revise regulations that have been in place for more than 25 years. Revisions are proposed in light of 2001 and 2006 Supreme Court rulings that interpreted the regulatory scope of the CWA more narrowly than previously, but created uncertainty about the precise effect of the Court's decisions. [...] This report describes the proposed rule and includes a table comparing the existing regulatory language that defines 'waters of the United States' with the proposed revisions. The proposal is particularly focused on clarifying the regulatory status of waters located in isolated places in a landscape. It does not modify some categories of waters that currently are jurisdictional by rule (traditional navigable waters, interstate waters and wetlands, the territorial seas, and impoundments)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Copeland, Claudia
2014-09-10
