Amending Section 319 of the Clean Water Act

Word Count: 5,332

AP Research

May 1st, 2023

 Amendatory Legislation Addressing Section 319 of the Clean Water Act

Introduction:

After the original Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) was signed into law in

1948, America became a global leader of environmental policy and protection. Since then,

United States environmental law has been driven by the nation’s four most prominent

environmental statutes, including the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), and most importantly, the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Clean Water Act,

originally enacted in 1972, quickly grew in political popularity as it was one of the first pieces of

federally enacted environmental policies. Prior to 1972, all 50 states had passed at least one piece

of environmental legislation, all varying in enforcement; the new CWA, therefore, acted as a

contradicting piece of legislation highlighting the value of federal enforcements, rather than state

enforcements (Keiser and Shapiro 2018).

This shift in power from state to federal enforcements created both political and scientific

controversy when trying to identify what form of legislation would have the most efficient

environmental effect. Adding on, the CWA created a large amount of economic controversy

because of the grant funds states received in order to comply with the asks of this act. These

grant funds are requested by the states and are utilized to oversee the writing of permits for

municipal plants, monitor and enforce violations, as well as other activities (Sigman 2003).

Within this act, grant funds target the enforcement of industrial pollution sources and municipal

waste treatments: more commonly referred to as “point source pollution”. What the act fails to

properly acknowledge are the “nonpoint source” (NPS) pollutants that are also affecting
American waterways. These pollutants develop from urban and agricultural runoff, making them

more difficult to regulate compared to point source pollution (Keiser and Shapiro 2018).

The regulation of NPS pollution falls outside of the CWA’s permit requirements as well

as enforcement mechanisms, and is not part of a federally mandated provision; therefore, NPS

pollutants are essentially unregulated by the CWA in its entirety. Consequently, these pollutants

have become the leading cause of water pollution in the United States.

Congress originally had enforced state-implemented provisions, meaning the states have

the jurisdiction to create and mandate these provisions that would satisfy the overall goals of

decreasing NPS pollution. After this proved ineffective in decreasing overall NPS pollutants,

Congress added Section 319 to the CWA in 1987. Section 319 would require states to identify

waters being affected by NPS pollutants and then voluntarily create Best Management Plans

(BMPs) to address these problems. The addition of Section 319 created two major problems.

First, states have more frequently been adopting non-regulatory approaches, including voluntary

BMPs, to deal with the problem, which has proved inefficient in addressing these pollutants.

Voluntary BMPs are unmandated programs, and therefore show inconsistent progress from state

to state because of the program’s discretionary aspect. And secondly, the section fails to define

“nonpoint source pollution”, leading to a great margin of error when states are creating and

enacting these BMPs (Andreen and Jones 2008).

In order to address these issues and more effectively regulate NPS pollutants within the

United States, a piece of amendatory legislation addressing Section 319 of the CWA must be

written and enacted to address these inefficiencies that are not allowing individual states to

adhere to the EPA’s NPS pollution goals. Since the CWA has had promising success with their
other federally mandated programs, a shift to centralize Section 319 to federally regulated BMPs,

rather than state BMPs, may be the most effective way to decrease these pollutants.

Literary Review:

Recent environmental research has proven NPS pollutants as the world's leading factor in

water pollution, therefore attracting governmental attention globally. When addressing these

global concerns, it is important to understand the current research status of NPS pollution in

order to guide future research practices. Many researchers have developed various environmental

models to simulate the effect NPS pollutants have on waterways; these include bibliometric

models, hydrological models, and crop growth models that are able to simulate the agricultural

NPS effects. These models have allowed the identification of leading factors of NPS risk and the

capacities of controlling this pollution (Lei et al. 2021).

Through social models, researchers have further been able to establish that incentive

programs are the most effective way in decreasing these pollutants. The United States

Department of Agriculture has since identified two ways in which voluntary and nonvoluntary

incentives can be utilized to achieve the EPA’s goals of reducing NPS pollution. Education and

technical assistance, as well as cost-sharing and incentive payments, are two methods of

voluntary reinforcement; these incentives provide farmers the tools they need to decrease these

pollutants on their own terms. Taxes and regulations are a different way to create nonvoluntary

incentives for NPS pollutants. These nonvoluntary incentives focus on the punishments for

creating these pollutants, rather than the reward for limiting them (Cooper and Feather 1995).

When it comes to incentive programs, it is important to address the difference between

single polluters and multiple polluters. It is far more attainable to monitor multiple polluters'

NPS waste compared to an individual person. The International Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management found three key reasons to utilize an incentive program for NPS

pollutants. First, it requires a minimum amount of governmental interference in daily firm

operations, and firms are free to choose the least pollution-abating agricultural techniques,

meaning that they control how much the government has to interfere with them (Sergerson

1985). Secondly, the short run cost-sharing mechanisms could be used to prevent placing

excessive burdens on the polluting sector, therefore redirecting the burden of environmental

pollution within our governmental system, as long as the parameters of the BMP are adjusted

accordingly to maintain proper incentives. And finally, these incentive schemes can focus on

environmental quality rather than emissions. This is much more appropriate when attempting to

control stochastic pollution that is less concerned with emission levels (Sergerson 1985).

Many researchers have identified incentive schemes and created models showing the

effects of NPS pollutants, but no such program has been enacted by the EPA. Europe has seen a

considerable drop in NPS pollutants after implementing these incentive schemes into practice.

These nations focus on environmental economics, a practice in which Americans do not, when

creating BMPs for NPS pollutants. The Department of International and European Economic

Studies at Athens University has recently examined the vast impacts of NPS pollution and has

identified the long list of areas in need of addressing when amending a piece of NPS pollution

policy.

Although there is no governmental definition, the following characteristics begin to

address the vast scope that is NPS pollution: pollutant particles that arise over an extensive area

of land and move to infiltrate surface and ground waters, the effect uncontrollable climatic and

geographic events have on geological conditions, and the effluent treatment of land and runoff

practices (Xepapadeas 2012). This runoff, which is mainly attributed to agriculture, is regarded
as the main cause of water pollution in the United States (EPA 2007). Whereas in Europe,

eutrophication and hypoxia are the leading causes of water pollution. A NPS pollution program

has limited the effect of these pollutants on the main waterways of Europe (EEA 2007).

Replicating such programs at the federal level would effectively decrease these pollutants, and

centralize environmental practices in the United States.

Gap and Research Question:

Although there is not an agreed-upon method for addressing NPS pollution within the

scientific community, there is a mutual acknowledgement of the fact that NPS pollutants must be

better managed and regulated within the United States.

The gap addressed by my proposed research is that there is a lack of federal regulations

surrounding NPS pollution. The Clean Water Act addresses NPS pollution, but does not impose a

federal mandate, therefore showing where the gap in the research lies. There is a legislative

struggle in regulating NPS pollutants because of how difficult they are to track. Scholarly

research is able to identify where the pollution comes from, but because of natural factors, such

as rainfall and runoff that play such a prominent role in this issue, it hasn't been regulated at a

national level. Within a literary review of NPS pollution, I have been able to find methods and

strategies to prevent these pollutants, but I will be addressing the gap by taking this research and

applying it to a federal setting within policy, as well as utilizing an expert panel to gauge varying

opinions on the best ways to situate this environmental problem to fit a political agenda.

This leads to the overarching question of the study: how could an amendatory bill

addressing Section 319 of the Clean Water Act be utilized to impose federal regulations that

address nonpoint source pollution while still benefiting both political parties? In order to answer

this question, it must be assumed that there is a correlation between environmental federal
regulations and the effect of NPS pollutants on the environment, and an assumption that federal

regulations will be more effective in terms of protecting the environment, compared to state

BMPs. The hypothesis is that a drafted piece of amendatory legislation that proposes a federal

regulation on nonpoint source pollutants, rather than the current federally encouraged state NPS

programs, would decrease the amount of NPS pollutants that contaminate the nation’s waters.

This piece of legislation will be able to successfully incorporate environmental economics,

modeling, and incentives schemes that have been bisecting American environmental policy from

effective environmental solutions.

Approach:

In order to successfully write this piece of legislation, I must turn to experts within the

environmental field for guidance. As I write this legislation, I will consult a panel of expert

advisors in the field for suggestions, guidelines, and personal advice. These individuals were

selected based on demonstrated expertise in their respected field, as well as accessibility. This

approach is more commonly known as Delphi Research. The Delphi method, or Delphi

technique, is a communicative approach to answering a research question through an identified

consensus from subject experts. It fosters reflection amongst panel members, and is able to

forecast expert opinions on certain issues. When writing any form of policy, the Delphi technique

is often utilized in order to formulate a piece of policy that incorporates diverse solutions for

multiple issues. Policy writing is a very collaborative effort, therefore a method such as Delphi

must be used in order to properly combine experts recommendations into a unified solution and

consensus.

For my specific research project, I chose to utilize the Delphi method over other research

methods because the feedback from an expert panel will simulate the feedback from peers in a
congressional setting. Other alternative methods I considered were surveying the public's opinion

on environmental issues, or conducting scientific tests of my own on specific aspects of NPS

pollutants, but what these other methods fail to accomplish is an agreed upon consensus of

feasible solutions that have a chance of getting signed into law. Further, since this piece of

legislation would reflect other pieces of environmental legislation that have successfully gone

through the congressional process, I must simulate that process within my own panel. Although

gaining public opinion would be beneficial as it would focus on the issues constituents have the

greatest concern with, experts in both legislation and environmentalism are those that need to

approve the final writing, therefore, must be the individuals in which I conduct my method with.

Methodology:

As part of my Delphi research, I carefully selected 12 anonymous experts in both

legislation and environmental research to act as my panel for my project. The experts will remain

anonymous for the extent of the research as to increase the validity in the responses I receive

from the panel. Within these 12 individuals, I have acquired three legislative/policy directors,

two chiefs of staff, three environmental lobbyists, two NPS pollution researchers, and lastly, two

retired EPA Administrators. Although all have varying careers, these 12 individuals will be able

to provide direct insight on both the specific problems with the current legislation, and areas of

concern in the general topic of environmental legislation.

For each expert within the panel, I drafted two consistent questions and two

individualized questions about my changes to the piece of legislation. All four questions were

open-ended and answered via email (see Appendix G) or phone call, depending on availability of

the expert. The two consistent questions, which were asked to all ten panel members, were about

adding an incentive system to Section 319, and about changing the management system of
Section 319 (see Appendix A). These two questions would allow me to understand diverse

opinions on the two largest changes I plan to make within the legislation. The second two

questions each panel member will be asked is specific to both their career, and experience in the

field (see Appendix B-F).

Generally, the last two questions attempted to gauge how much an expert did or didn't

think the legislation would succeed, and how the policy could be written to appeal to both

political parties. Also, I used these last two questions to ask those with longer experience in the

field, such as the retired EPA Administrators, what has or hasn't worked in the past, and how I

can use the knowledge of these successes and failures to achieve greater success with the

implementation of my legislation. Other examples of questions I asked reflected the forecasted

success of the legislation. For example, I asked the legislative directors with suggestions on the

writing style of the section, and I asked the environmental lobbyists what aspects of the bill

would make this legislation more or likely to be lobbied for during congressional voting. These

specific questions to the panel members were the most important part of the Delphi research, and

allowed me to focus on specific areas of the writing that needed more attention.

After accumulating all the interview responses from the experts, I was able to

chronologically incorporate these ideas into my writing, in the same order they were interviewed.

I interviewed the 12 panelists in order of how I would incorporate their feedback into my own

writing. The responses from the NPS pollution researchers and retired EPA Administrators were

applied first to the writing, as they are the most scientifically driven compared to social aspects.

Likewise, the responses from the chiefs of staff and lobbyists were incorporated into the

legislation last, since they more reflected how the bill would or wouldn't pass congress due to

legislative reasoning, compared to scientific reasoning.

 The overall goal of gaining responses from these panel members was so I could more

accurately curate a piece of effective legislation that will accomplish a wider range of goals.

There are many factors that go into legislative writing that are beyond the scope of my research,

such as how political affiliations will affect voting, and how Republican or Democrat majorities

will impact how much of the legislative process this legislation can successfully go through, but

gaining the feedback, ideas, and concerns from these carefully selected panelists will improve

not only the feasibility of my solutions, but also the success rate of the final section.

Limitations:

Although my panel was carefully curated and my questions were carefully drafted, this

method has some limitations for the research. To start, my research will be heavily influenced by

the opinions of the panel, therefore part of my research is limited to the understanding and skill

experience of my panel. With that being said, the research technique is replicable in method, but

not in outcome, because the outcome of the legislative writing will be dictated by the unique

panel of anonymous individuals. There are also time constraints within this method. As to not

rush the experts, and to have the most thorough responses possible, each set of interviews or

questions may take upwards of 3-4 weeks, which may delay the writing of the actual piece of

legislation depending on the researchers time frame.

Continuing, the experts that a high school senior, such as myself, has access to are much

different than that of a researcher who is also in the field. Therefore, my research is limited to the

experts I was able to interview and were willing to work with me on this project. In other

situations, panel members would appear in greater numbers, being interviewed with more

questions, and would most likely have a financial incentive to participate in extended months

worth of research.
Results:

After three months of conducting Delphi interviews with the 12 experts on my research

panel, I was able to formulate the opinions of the panel into a coherent piece of legislation.

During Delphi interviews, the panelists were asked to respond and place an opinion of solutions

previously brought up by myself, rather than them propose their own solutions.

The panelists responded to 4 questions in total: two constant questions for all 12

panelists, and two additional questions specific to the expert's career. The two constant questions

asked to the panelists were as follows:

1. In your opinion, could an incentive scheme (i.e. implementing a payment system towards

states who follow regulations, or collect payment from those who don't) be an effective

way to encourage state programs to improve their environment management programs?

2. Could an increase in federal oversight over state management programs improve the

success rate of state programs mandated, but not enforced, by the federal government?

These questions were used to gauge the support, or lack of support, towards the largest two

changes that I would propose in the legislation. With this information, a table was created to

highlight which panelists would, or wouldnt, support the two changes proposed in the constant

questions. This table would include the panelist, including party affiliation in relation to their

career, the two questions asked, and the panelist’s responses. As these were the two largest

changes in the policy, a table combining the results of the interviews would allow for a

comparison of results, and how factors such as careers and political affiliations would affect

these results. These personal factors are necessary to take into consideration when implementing

the opinions of the panel, and therefore must be part of the chart. The results were as follows:
Expert Panelist: Would the expert Would the expert support
(Party Affiliation in Career) support an incentive increased federal oversight?
scheme?

Legislative Director Support Support

(Democratic)

Energy Policy Director Support Support

(Democratic)

Policy Advisor Not Support Support

(Democratic)

Chief of Staff Not Support Support

(Republican)

Chief of Staff Not Support Not Support

(Republican)

Research Coordinator for Support Not Support

Environmental Lobbying Firm
(Bipartisan)

Senior Vice President of Support Support

Environmental Lobbying Firm
(Bipartisan)

Strategic Advisor for Support Support

Environmental Lobbying Firm
(Bipartisan)

NPS Researcher in the EPA’s Office Support Support

of Research and Development
(No Affiliation)

Environmental Economist and NPS Not Support Not Support

Researcher
(No Affiliation)

Retired EPA Administrator Support Support

(No Affiliation)

Retired EPA Administrator Not Support Support

(No Affiliation)
Two Constant Questions:

This chart is able to show the general correlation between a Republican disapproval for

incentive schemes and increased federal oversight, and a general Democratic approval for these

two issues. As for the bipartisan and non politically affiliated panel members, the approval

ratings were more dependent on personal opinions, rather than career reasonings. These two

consistent questions laid the groundwork for the main amendments of the legislation, and led to

following up questions asked to the panelists. In specific, one panelist highlighted that when

writing about incentive schemes, it is critical “to make sure that the voters see that they will

personally benefit from the regulations being followed (see Appendix K).” By this, the panelist

meant that the success of an incentive scheme is dependent on constituents understanding the

benefits from these systems.

Following the two constant questions, each individual was also asked two more

questions, specifically relating to their career. These questions were used to identify smaller

details of what to, or not to, include in the final piece of legislation.

Legislative/Policy Directors in a Democratic Office:

The legislative and policy directors were asked two more questions (see Appendix B).

The first question asked about gaining both parties' approval for pieces of legislation, and the

second question asked about the most prominent concerns found within environmental

legislation. After asking three legislative and policy directors these questions, the results showed

that a bill must include an economically feasible budget if there is a prospect for the bill to be

passed by both parties. The most prominent concern found was also that since environmental

legislation is a prominently Democratic issue, a Republican majority in the House of

Representatives will restrict how far this bill will travel through the legislative process. To

combat this, the Democratic legislative and policy directors encourage waiting to bring a piece of

environmental legislation to the table, until there is a Democratic majority in congress.

Chiefs of Staff in a Republican Office:

The Republican chief of staffs were asked two more questions (see Appendix C). The

first question asked about the largest restrictions following this type of legislation, and the

second question asked about how to appeal to both political parties. The results from the chiefs

of staff showed that political polarity is often the largest restriction stopping environmental

legislation. Climate change is a very partisan issue, and therefore will be rarely supported by

Republicans in the House or Senate. To combat this, Democrats must find a way to achieve their

goals without increasing taxes or severely increasing government spending which Republicans

would be quick to reject. These budget suggestions led to changes made in subsection (h) of the

act.

Environmental Lobbyists for a Bipartisan Firm:

The environmental lobbyists were asked two more questions (see Appendix D). The first

question asked about aspects of legislation lobbyists look for, and the second question asked

about the unique parts of environmental legislation. The results from the lobbyists responded that

their firm will lobby for specific pieces of legislation similar to what they have lobbied for

before. With that being said, the lobbyists also look for pieces of legislation that would appeal to

the values of constituents over the values of congressmen. During an interview with one of the

panelists, the lobbyist stated that “[policy agencies] like to see legislation that attracts
progressives by achieving fairness and support for the disadvantaged, while also attracting

conservatives by emphasizing freedom of choice and provisions that employ market mechanisms

(see Appendix L).” This information aided in guiding how this legislation could be written to

appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. Additionally, the lobbyists were not confident on

what unique aspects of environmental legislation must be included for a bill to be passed, but

agreed that the most successful pieces of amendatory legislation will not exceed the budget set

by the original bill.

NPS Researcher with no Political Affiliation:

The NPS researchers were asked two more questions (see Appendix E). The first question

asked about defining NPS pollution, and the second question asked about governmental

interference on NPS pollution. The results from the researchers showed a constant, clear

definition of NPS pollution. A set definition of this pollution will be beneficial in this bill as it

will clarify specifically what each state must mandate within their state programs. Also,

governmental interference regulated NPS pollution lessens the effects of NPS pollution on the

environment.

Retired EPA Administrator with no Political Affiliation:

Finally, the retired EPA Administrators were asked the last two questions (see Appendix

F). The first question asked about the largest benefits of federal oversight, and the second

question asked about the greatest weaknesses of the current CWA. The EPA Administrators’

responses were similar to those of the policy advisors. They believed that partisan polarization

restricts the passing of environmental research in both chambers of congress, but federal
oversight would increase the effectiveness of environmental legislation as it reinforces the

mandates set by the government in a more effective manner. Also, these panelists stated that

further success from the CWA is restricted by a lack of centralization revolving Section 319.

Therefore federal BMPs rather than state BMPs would lead to a solution.

Discussion and Evaluation:

To summarize the results of the Delphi interviews, I was able to identify a majority

support in both implementing an incentive scheme as well as increasing the federal oversight of

the bill to include a state representative from the EPA. As stated above in my findings, the Delphi

research laid the groundwork for what should and should not be included within this bill. Along

with that, this information must also take into consideration the contrary or supportive literature

research that was used as a guidance for the questions posed to the panel.

When implementing my research into the piece of amendatory legislation, I had to choose

what to and not to include within the final draft. For example, I focused on three main areas in

my amendments. These included an incentive scheme, federal oversight, and a budget

reconciliation. Because of these three main focuses, I will utilize Delphi interviews with

additional questions pertaining to these issues as my support and specific changes that will be

highlighted in the final bill (see Appendix J), but not the research paper.

Overall, the Delphi research supported what my literature review stated, and will act as

the foundation for the changes within this legislation.

Implementation:

After gathering all the data provided by the Delphi research, the opinions of the panel,

alongside the research acquired in the literature review, were able to be implemented in an
 amendatory bill of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. When amending this bill, there were

three major areas of focus to change. These included subsection (b), (c), and (h).

Starting with creating the federal mandate of an incentive scheme, I would need to amend

subsection (b) that addresses the current encouraged BMPs. As explained earlier, these BMPs are

encouraged by the federal government for the state governments but not mandated with

punishments or enforcements. These programs also allow an allotted grant budget if states

choose to participate. The Delphi research showed a 58.33% approval rating, and is supported by

scholarly work proving the effectiveness of these incentives. Therefore, subsection (b) will be

rewritten to implement these changes.

Image of Subsection (b) of the Original Bill Image of Subsection (b) of the Amended Bill

Excerpts from the Clean Water Act as amended in 2022 (see Appendix I) and the amended Clean Water Act as amended in 2023 (see Appendix J)

Above I have provided a side by side comparison of the original bill and the newly

constructed bill with the changes implemented. The implementation of an incentive scheme is

the largest change being made to this bill, and will reflect the shift from trust to a reward system
 that would change how our federal government addresses environmental concerns. This

implementation of federally mandated BMPs will centralize the environmental practices

surrounding NPS pollution in our nation, and will introduce the fee and dividend system

implemented later in this bill.

Secondly, I will address the oversight issue of the bill. In the original bill, the NPS

programs were to be reported to the Administrator of the EPA. The EPA Administrator is the

singular leader of the organization, and would act as oversight for all 50 states, assuming all 50

states participated in the programs. With my proposed piece of legislation, subsection (c) would

have the regional Administrators of the EPA assume these positions, and would mandate state

representatives to enact a leader from the state's respected EPA team, who would work alongside

the regional Administrator. This new provision will allow increased oversight and accountability

for these states to follow their programs, and will specialize the enforcement of this act.

Image of Subsection (c) of the Original Bill Image of Subsection (c) of the Amended Bill

Excerpts from the Clean Water Act as amended in 2022 (see Appendix I) and the amended Clean Water Act as amended in 2023 (see Appendix J)
 Again, above I have provided a side by side comparison of the original bill and the newly

constructed bill with the oversight changes implemented. This change is significant as it shifts

the power of who mandates the bill. Although the EPA would still be overseeing this bill, this

new provision would allow a slight shift in power back to the states, and will increase both

effectiveness and efficiency of all involved in implementing this complex bill. This shift would

increase states autonomy in environmental decision making, but would ultimately increase the

federal administrators overseeing the act.

Finally, the last major change being made to the bill revolved around a budget

reconciliation. Currently, the original bill has allotted a maximum of $130,000,000 of federal

spending towards these management programs. This budget and spending is outlined in

subsection (h) of Section 319. Carefully amending this section is crucial to maintaining the

bipartisan support of environmental policy, typically halted by Republican disapproval for

increased fiscal spending.

Image of Subsection (h) of the Original Bill Image of Subsection (h) of the Amended Bill

Excerpts from the Clean Water Act as amended in 2022 (see Appendix I) and the amended Clean Water Act as amended in 2023 (see Appendix J)

This final change to Section 319 would shift the allotted budget towards incentive

schemes. This means that of the $130,000,000 budget, $75,000,000 of the money will remain

money towards beginning the programs, but the other 50% will turn into a dividend towards

respected states and constituents. As explained in amended subsection (b), states who stay under

the NPS pollution amounts will receive a proportional dividend back to state governments, and

then allotted to constituents. Again, this budget must be carefully amended in order to maintain

the bipartisan support, and encourage how this amendment as a whole will not raise our national

debt, or put our citizens in debt; it will rather do the opposite.

Future Directions:

After concluding the writing of Amendatory Section 319 of the CWA (see Appendix J),

this new piece of legislation would go through the legislative process and be brought to the

congressional chambers.

Throughout the Delphi research, I worked closely with many political offices showing

encouragement for both my research as well as this type of legislation. Therefore in this specific

case, I would bring my final amended bill to one of these offices, and have the congressman

propose it to their respective chamber. Whether that means the House of Representatives or the

Senate, the bill would then be brought to committee for reviewing and editing, and then back to

the congressional floor for voting. If the bill is successfully voted on, it would then move to the

other congressional chamber to be voted on once again. The bill will then, lastly, travel to the

executive branch where the president would either veto the bill, or sign it into law.

In the hypothetical situation that the bill successfully passes the legislative process and is

then signed into law, the federal EPA would mandate the incentive scheme within the same

congressional period, and states would begin the process of implementing and refining their own

NPS pollution BMPs. This process will not be quick, and will take many years to see the effects

of. Because of this time constraint and lack of feasibility revolving around passing this policy

through the entirety of the legislative process, my research will conclude at implementing the

literature review and Delphi research within the piece of amendatory legislation. The scope of

my research is unable to track the long term effects of my conclusions, findings, and product, but

will accurately reflect the process an amendatory bill must travel through in order for it to be

both feasible and successful within our nation. This piece of legislation is in a state in which it

can be taken to a congressional chamber, and therefore is concluded in terms of policy writing.
Conclusion:

Our nation is facing a large environmental issue at hand right now concerning NPS

pollution and the detrimental effects of these pollutants on our waterways and ecosystems. This

pollution damages aquatic life, infiltrates water sources, and reduces the capacity of water

resources to be used for drinking and recreation. A thorough literature review was able to show

an abundant amount of solutions for this NPS pollution issue, but a lack of implementation.

My research aimed not to find a solution to NPS pollution, but to rather formulate a way

for these solutions to be implemented within our nation in a feasible and successful manner. To

do this, I utilized an expert panel that I was able to work with and conduct research with while

also simultaneously writing this piece of legislation. This Delphi research allowed me to

formulate an incentive scheme and implement it in writing, found in the form of a fee and

dividend system designed to benefit constituents and tax polluters.

This finalized bill now has the possibilities to be signed into law and implemented within

our nation. While my academic research is stopped at this point, this research concludes not only

the feasibility of new, modern solutions towards dated problems, but also a middle ground of

understanding between the bipartisan divide that has halted furthering bills like this from being

passed within our chambers. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act is an example of new

amendatory legislation that may, with further political and environmental research, allow for

scientific solutions that will bridge our dividing government, and reverse decades worth of

environmental damage and destruction: showing that a greener future is not only feasible, but

necessary.

WC : 5,332
Bibliography:

Andreen, William L. and Jones, Shana, “The Clean Water Act: A Blueprint for Reform” U of

Alabama Public Law Research Paper, CRP White Paper No. 802, No. 1236162, July

2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1236162

Clean Water Act: [33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.] § (2022)

David A Keiser, Joseph S Shapiro, “Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for

Water Quality” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 134, Issue 1, February 2019,

Pages 349–396, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy019

EEA. “EMEP/Corinair Emission Inventory Guidebook - 2007.” European Environment Agency,

28 June 2016, https://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/EMEPCORINAIR5.

EPA. “Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal

Projects.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection

Agency, 2007,

https://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/technical-guidance-implementing-stormwater-runoff-re

quirements-federal-projects.

Feather, Peter and Joseph C. Cooper. “Voluntary Incentives for Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint

Source Water Pollution.” Agricultural Information Bulletins, 1995,: n. pag.

https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/33019/PDF

Fleming, P.M., Stephenson, K., Collick, A.S., Easton, Z.M., “Targeting for nonpoint source
 pollution reduction: A synthesis of lessons learned, remaining challenges, and emerging

opportunities.” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 308, 2022, 114649, ISSN

0301-4797, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114649.

Lacroix, Anne, Nicolas Beaudoin, and David Makowski. “Agricultural Water Nonpoint Pollution

Control under Uncertainty and Climate Variability.” Ecological Economics 53, no. 1

(February 1, 2005): 115–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.11.001.

Lei, Ping, Ram Kumar Shrestha, Bing Zhu, Suju Han, Hongbin Yang, Shaojun Tan, Jiupai Ni,

and Deti Xie. 2021. "A Bibliometric Analysis on Nonpoint Source Pollution: Current

Status, Development, and Future" International Journal of Environmental Research and

Public Health 18, no. 15: 7723. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157723

Segerson, Kathleen. “Uncertainty and Incentives for Nonpoint Pollution Control.” Journal of

Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 15, no. 1, 1988, pp. 87–98.,

https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(88)90030-7.

Sigman, Hilary. “Letting States Do the Dirty Work: State Responsibility for Federal

Environmental Regulation.” National Tax Journal, vol. 56, no. 1.1, 2003,

https://doi.org/10.3386/w9451.

Shortle, James S., Marc Ribuado, Richard D. Horan, and David Blandford. “Reforming

Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution Policy in an Increasingly Budget-Constrained

Environment.” Environmental Science and Technology, 1316−1325, 46 (January 10,

2012). https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2020499
Xepapadeas, Anastasios. “The Economics of Non-Point-Source Pollution.” Handbook of

Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 3, 12 Apr. 2011, pp. 355–373.,

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843768586.00049.

Appendix:

A: Constant questions asked to all members of the Delphi research panel

1. In your opinion, could an incentive scheme (i.e. implementing a payment system

towards states who follow regulations, or collect payment from those who don't) be an

effective way to encourage state programs to improve their environment management

programs?

2. Could an increase in federal oversight over state management programs improve the

success rate of state programs mandated, but not enforced, by the federal government?

B: Individual questions asked to the legislative directors on the Delphi panel

1. What is essential to include in environmental policy to encourage both parties' approval

towards this type of legislation?

2. What are the most prominent concerns faced when writing or analyzing environmental

legislation, and how are they typically combatted?

C: Individual questions asked to the Chiefs of Staff on the Delphi panel
1. What is the largest restriction stopping more environmental legislation to be passed in

today's congressional hearings?

2. In your opinion, what is the most effective way to appeal to both political parties when

writing legislation? or is it more feasible to focus on appealing to one party over the

other?

D: Individual questions asked to the environmental lobbyists on the Delphi panel

1. When lobbying for pieces of environmental legislation, what are aspects of the

legislation essential for approval from both parties?

2. What are the unique aspects of environmental legislation that must be included in a bill

in order for it to be successfully passed?

E: Individual questions asked to the NPS researchers on the Delphi panel

1. In your own words, how would you define NPS pollution and why it is a prominent

issue in today's time?

2. How does governmental interference improve or worsen the effects of nonpoint source

pollution within our environment?

F: Individual questions asked to the retired EPA Administrators on the Delphi panel

1. What are the largest benefits to a federal oversight on environmental issues, rather than

state by state oversight?

2. What are the greatest weaknesses of the current CWA as a whole, or Section 319 in

specific?

G: Drafted email example, sent to the panel members in the beginning of the Delphi
research process

Environmental Legislative Research Feedback

Dear (Name and Title of panel member) ,

My name is (my name) and I am a (grade level) at (current place of education). I am currently
conducting a research project about nonpoint source pollution and the Clean Water Act. As the
(profession of the panel member) , I was hoping I could utilize your professional opinion as
part of my research project by answering four questions.

The research I am conducting analyzes the inefficiencies of Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act and identifies solutions that can be implemented into a piece of amendatory legislation. If
you are unfamiliar with this section of the CWA, I have attached a document explaining the
act. I am more so looking for how the topic of nonpoint source pollution and environmental
legislation affects your career, not proposing amendments to the bill. By answering these
questions, I will be able to identify various professional opinions and incorporate these
opinions into my research; your name will not be used in my final documentation, only your
career and answers will be.

With that being said, the four questions are as followed:

1. (Individualized question #1)
2. (Individualized question #2)
3. In your opinion, could an incentive scheme (i.e. implementing a payment system
towards states who follow regulations, or collect payment from those who don't) be an
effective way to encourage state programs to improve their NPS environment
management programs?
4. Could an increase in federal oversight over state management programs improve the
success rate of state programs mandated, but not enforced, by the federal government?
 I appreciate the consideration and you taking your time to be part of my research. The
answering of the questions should take no more than 15 minutes, and will be very significant
in my findings. If you feel you are unable to answer any of the four questions, feel free to skip
it. I look forward to hearing back from you, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any
questions. Have a great day.

Always,
(my name)
(my phone number to contact)
(my email to contact)
(my place of current education)

H: Section 319 of the Clean Water Act Overview, as sent as an attachment in the initial
email to the panel members (see Appendix G)

§ 319 Overview

I. § 319 Nonpoint Source Program Goals

The § 319 nonpoint source (NPS) program1 is an integral component and funding source for
state NPS management programs which aim to control NPS pollution to achieve and maintain
beneficial uses of waters. Effective state NPS programs supported by § 319 maintain and
improve water quality by:
- strategically focusing on water quality goals to achieve water quality standards in the
state’s priority waters/watersheds;
- clearly articulating program goals and developing annual work plans that reflect
actions to advance those goals;
- reflecting a balance between planning, staffing, statewide action, and watershed
project implementation that best utilizes resources to deliver measurable water quality
results;
- tracking and reporting results to demonstrate program progress and success. By
supporting the variety of state NPS management programs with an integrated national
framework, the § 319 program helps address the national water quality challenges
posed by NPS pollution.

II. Introduction

A. Statutory Background

1
NPS pollution is not defined in the Clean Water Act. A brief definition is that NPS pollution includes pollution caused
by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground and carrying natural and human-made pollutants into
lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries, other coastal waters and groundwater. Atmospheric deposition and
hydrologic modification are also sources of nonpoint pollution.
Congress enacted § 319 of the Clean Water Act(CWA) in 1987, establishing a national
program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Under § 319(a), all states have
addressed NPS pollution by developing NPS assessment reports that identify NPS pollution
problems and sources responsible for the water quality impairments. Under § 319(b), all
states have also adopted state NPS management programs to control NPS pollution. State
NPS management programs provide the foundation for state programs to address NPS
pollution. These programs should articulate each state’s strategy to address nonpoint sources
and to achieve/maintain water quality standards. Since 1990, Congress has annually
appropriated grant funds to states under § 319(h) to implement their approved state NPS
management program.

B. The Role of § 319 Grants

§ 319 grants are important resources available to states to support/assist their NPS programs
to restore impaired waters and protect unimpaired/high quality waters. These guidelines
provide the framework for using § 319 funds to achieve the specific goals, objectives, and
milestones established in a state’s approved NPS management program.

§ 319 funds should be considered one component of a broad-based strategy to control the
wide range of NPS impairments and threats affecting our nation’s waters. The effectiveness of
state NPS programs will depend on the effective use and leveraging of the funds, resources,
and authorities of a wide variety of public and private sector entities that have a role to play in
abating and preventing NPS pollution problems.

III. § 319 Shortcomings

In October 2022, the Clean Water Act turned 50. Though heralded as a crowning
environmental achievement, some argue it’s a costly and ineffective law, and that existing
agricultural NPS policies are not making the most effective use of the resources and funds
devoted to water quality protection.

Beyond its language, the Clean Water Act fails to regulate “nonpoint source pollution,” or
pollution that doesn’t come from a discrete location, such as agricultural runoff. In contrast to
“point source” pollution from industrial facilities or municipalities, nonpoint sources are
regulated exclusively by the states — with no federal oversight. This is one of the most
substantial drawbacks of the Clean Water Act and is likely the reason that 40 percent of all
waterways are impaired and 86 percent of all rivers and streams have suffered ecological
devastation. Only seven states have enacted nonpoint pollution regulations since 1972.

It is also well-known that existing agricultural NPS policies are not making the most
effective use of the resources devoted to water quality protection. This is a particularly
important public policy concern given the historical reliance on financial assistance (i.e.,
subsidies), at a time when expenditures for environmental and other public goods are under
substantial pressure in the search for solutions to large structural budgetary imbalances at
federal and state levels. Congress cut over $500 million from U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) conservation programs in FY 2011, which have been the dominant vehicle for
subsidizing agricultural BMPs, and additional large cuts are expected in future years.

The root of most of these issues stems from the lack of definition for NPS pollution. The
Clean Water Act does not define the term ‘NPS pollution’, and results in a lack of clear
jurisdiction as to what the federal EPA can or cannot regulate nationally under the CWA.

With this being said, policy reforms that improve cost-effectiveness must be a priority for
continued progress in managing agricultural NPS pollution. Amending § 319 in an
economically feasible way, with increased federal oversight, and including a definition
for NPS pollution, will improve the commercial water systems and growing NPS
pollution problem within the nation.

I: Section 319 of the Original Clean Water Act, as amended in 2022

Federal Water Pollution Control Act

[Chapter 758 of the 80th Congress]
[33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.]
[As Amended Through P.L. 117–328, Enacted December 29,
2022]

[Currency: This publication is a compilation of the text of Chapter 758 of

the 80th Congress. It was last amended by the public law listed in the As
Amended Through note above and below at the bottom of each page of
the pdf version and reflects current law through the date of the
enactment of the public law listed at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/compss]

[Note: While this publication does not represent an official version of any
Federal statute, substantial efforts have been made to ensure the
accuracy of its contents. The official version of Federal law is found in
the United States Statutes at Large and in the United States Code. The
legal effect to be given to the Statutes at Large and the United States
Code is established by statute (1 U.S.C. 112, 204).]

AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public

Health Service of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal Works
Agency, and for other purposes.
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

[Sec. 101. - Sec. 318.]

SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

(a) STATE ASSESSMENT REPORTS.—
(1) CONTENTS.—The Governor of each State shall, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit to the Administrator for
approval, a report which—
(A) identifies those navigable waters within the State which,
without additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution,
cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water
quality standards or the goals and requirements of this Act;
(B) identifies those categories and subcategories of nonpoint
sources or, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources which add
significant pollution to each portion of the navigable waters identified
under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute to such portion
not meeting such water quality standards or such goals and
requirements;
(C) describes the process, including intergovernmental
coordination and public participation, for identifying best management
practices and measures to control each category and subcategory of
nonpoint sources and, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources
identified under subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the maximum
extent practicable, the level of pollution resulting from such category,
subcategory, or source; and
(D) identifies and describes State and local programs for
controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to, and improving
the quality of, each such portion of the navigable waters, including but
not limited to those programs which are receiving Federal assistance
under subsections (h) and (i).
(2) INFORMATION USED IN PREPARATION.—In developing the
report required by this section, the State (A) may rely upon information
developed pursuant to sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), and 314, and other
information as appropriate, and (B) may utilize appropriate elements of the
waste treatment management plans developed pursuant to sections 208(b)
and 303, to the extent such elements are consistent with and fulfill the
requirements of this section.
(b) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Governor of each State, for that State or in
combination with adjacent States, shall, after notice and opportunity for public
comment, prepare and submit to the Administrator for approval a management
program which such State proposes to implement in the first four fiscal years
beginning after the date of submission of such management program for
controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to the navigable waters
within the State and improving the quality of such waters.
(2) SPECIFIC CONTENTS.—Each management program proposed
for implementation under this subsection shall include each of the following:
(A) An identification of the best management practices and
measures which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant loadings
resulting from each category, subcategory, or particular nonpoint
source designated under paragraph (1)(B), taking into account the
impact of the practice on ground water quality.
(B) An identification of programs (including, as appropriate,
nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical
assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology
transfer, and demonstration projects) to achieve implementation of the
best management practices by the categories, subcategories, and
particular nonpoint sources designated under subparagraph (A).
(C) A schedule containing annual milestones for (i) utilization
of the program implementation methods identified in subparagraph (B),
and (ii) implementation of the best management practices identified in
subparagraph (A) by the categories, subcategories, or particular
nonpoint sources designated under paragraph (1)(B). Such schedule
shall provide for utilization of the best management practices at the
earliest practicable date.
(D) A certification of the attorney general of the State or States
(or the chief attorney of any State water pollution control agency which
has independent legal counsel) that the laws of the State or States, as
the case may be, provide adequate authority to implement such
management program or, if there is not such adequate authority, a list
of such additional authorities as will be necessary to implement such
management program. A schedule and commitment by the State or
States to seek such additional authorities as expeditiously as
practicable.
(E) Sources of Federal and other assistance and funding
(other than assistance provided under subsections (h) and (i)) which
will be available in each of such fiscal years for supporting
implementation of such practices and measures and the purposes for
which such assistance will be used in each of such fiscal years.
(F) An identification of Federal financial assistance programs
and Federal development projects for which the State will review
individual assistance applications or development projects for their
effect on water quality pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Executive Order 12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983, to
determine whether such assistance applications or development
projects would be consistent with the program prepared under this
subsection; for the purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall
not be limited to the assistance programs or development projects
subject to Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs listed
in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which may
 have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the State’s nonpoint
source pollution management program.
(3) UTILIZATION OF LOCAL AND PRIVATE EXPERTS.—In
developing and implementing a management program under this subsection, a
State shall, to the maximum extent practicable, involve local public and private
agencies and organizations which have expertise in control of nonpoint
sources of pollution.
(4) DEVELOPMENT ON WATERSHED BASIS.—A State shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a management program
under this subsection on a watershed-by-watershed basis within such State.
(c) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—
(1) COOPERATION REQUIREMENT.—Any report required by
subsection (a) and any management program and report required by
subsection (b) shall be developed in cooperation with local, substate regional,
and interstate entities which are actively planning for the implementation of
nonpoint source pollution controls and have either been certified by the
Administrator in accordance with section 208, have worked jointly with the
State on water quality management planning under section 205(j), or have
been designated by the State legislative body or Governor as water quality
management planning agencies for their geographic areas.
(2) TIME PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS AND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—Each report and management program shall
be submitted to the Administrator during the 18-month period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this section.
(d) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF REPORTS AND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS.—
(1) DEADLINE.—Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 180 days
after the date of submission to the Administrator of any report or management
program under this section (other than subsections (h), (i), and (k)), the
Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such report or management
program, as the case may be. The Administrator may approve a portion of a
management program under this subsection. If the Administrator does not
disapprove a report, management program, or portion of a management
program in such 180-day period, such report, management program, or portion
shall be deemed approved for purposes of this section.
(2) PROCEDURE FOR DISAPPROVAL.—If, after notice and
opportunity for public comment and consultation with appropriate Federal and
State agencies and other interested persons, the Administrator determines
that—
(A) the proposed management program or any portion thereof
does not meet the requirements of subsection (b)(2) of this section or
is not likely to satisfy, in whole or in part, the goals and requirements of
this Act;
(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate resources
are not available, to implement such program or portion;
(C) the schedule for implementing such program or portion is
not sufficiently expeditious; or
 (D) the practices and measures proposed in such program or
portion are not adequate to reduce the level of pollution in navigable
waters in the State resulting from nonpoint sources and to improve the
quality of navigable waters in the State;
the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the proposed program
notify the State of any revisions or modifications necessary to obtain approval.
The State shall thereupon have an additional 3 months to submit its revised
management program and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove such
revised program within three months of receipt.
(3) FAILURE OF STATE TO SUBMIT REPORT.—If a Governor of a
State does not submit the report required by subsection (a) within the period
specified by subsection (c)(2), the Administrator shall, within 30 months after
the date of the enactment of this section, prepare a report for such State which
makes the identifications required by paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) of
subsection (a). Upon completion of the requirement of the preceding sentence
and after notice and opportunity for comment, the Administrator shall report to
Congress on his actions pursuant to this section.
(e) LOCAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.— If a
State fails to submit a management program under subsection (b) or the Administrator
does not approve such a management program, a local public agency or organization
which has expertise in, and authority to, control water pollution resulting from nonpoint
sources in any area of such State which the Administrator determines is of sufficient
geographic size may, with approval of such State, request the Administrator to provide,
and the Administrator shall provide, technical assistance to such agency or
organization in developing for such area a management program which is described in
subsection (b) and can be approved pursuant to subsection (d). After development of
such management program, such agency or organization shall submit such
management program to the Administrator for approval. If the Administrator approves
such management program, such agency or organization shall be eligible to receive
financial assistance under subsection (h) for implementation of such management
program as if such agency or organization were a State for which a report submitted
under subsection (a) and a management program submitted under subsection (b) were
approved under this section. Such financial assistance shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions as assistance provided to a State under subsection (h).
(f) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE.—Upon request of a State, the
Administrator may provide technical assistance to such State in developing a
management program approved under subsection (b) for those portions of the
navigable waters requested by such State.
(g) INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.—
(1) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE; NOTIFICATION; PURPOSE.—
If any portion of the navigable waters in any State which is implementing a
management program approved under this section is not meeting applicable
water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this Act as a result, in
whole or in part, of pollution from nonpoint sources in another State, such
State may petition the Administrator to convene, and the Administrator shall
convene, a management conference of all States which contribute significant
pollution resulting from nonpoint sources to such portion. If, on the basis of
information available, the Administrator determines that a State is not meeting
applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this Act as
a result, in whole or in part, of significant pollution from nonpoint sources in
another State, the Administrator shall notify such States. The Administrator
may convene a management conference under this paragraph not later than
180 days after giving such notification, whether or not the State which is not
meeting such standards requests such conference. The purpose of such
conference shall be to develop an agreement among such States to reduce
the level of pollution in such portion resulting from nonpoint sources and to
improve the water quality of such portion. Nothing in such agreement shall
supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water which have been
established by interstate water compacts, Supreme Court decrees, or State
water laws. This subsection shall not apply to any pollution which is subject to
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The requirement that the
Administrator convene a management conference shall not be subject to the
provisions of section 505 of this Act.
(2) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENT.—To the
extent that the States reach agreement through such conference, the
management programs of the States which are parties to such agreements
and which contribute significant pollution to the navigable waters or portions
thereof not meeting applicable water quality standards or goals and
requirements of this Act will be revised to reflect such agreement. Such
management programs shall be consistent with Federal and State law.
(h) GRANT PROGRAM.—
(1) GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS.—Upon application of a State for which a report submitted under
subsection (a) and a management program submitted under subsection (b) is
approved under this section, the Administrator shall make grants, subject to
such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate, under
this subsection to such State for the purpose of assisting the State in
implementing such management program. Funds reserved pursuant to section
205(j)(5) of this Act may be used to develop and implement such management
program.
(2) APPLICATIONS.—An application for a grant under this subsection
in any fiscal year shall be in such form and shall contain such other information
as the Administrator may require, including an identification and description of
the best management practices and measures which the State proposes to
assist, encourage, or require in such year with the Federal assistance to be
provided under the grant.
(3) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of each
management program implemented with Federal assistance under this
subsection in any fiscal year shall not exceed 60 percent of the cost incurred
by the State in implementing such management program and shall be made
on condition that the non-Federal share is provided from non-Federal sources.
(4) LIMITATION ON GRANT AMOUNTS.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection, not more than 15 percent of the amount
appropriated to carry out this subsection may be used to make grants to any
one State, including any grants to any local public agency or organization with
authority to control pollution from nonpoint sources in any area of such State.
 (5) PRIORITY FOR EFFECTIVE MECHANISMS.—For each fiscal
year beginning after September 30, 1987, the Administrator may give priority in
making grants under this subsection, and shall give consideration in
determining the Federal share of any such grant, to States which have
implemented or are proposing to implement management programs which
will—
(A) control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint source
pollution problems, including, but not limited to, problems resulting
from mining activities;
(B) implement innovative methods or practices for controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution, including regulatory programs where the
Administrator deems appropriate;
(C) control interstate nonpoint source pollution problems; or
(D) carry out ground water quality protection activities which
the Administrator determines are part of a comprehensive nonpoint
source pollution control program, including research, planning, ground
water assessments, demonstration programs, enforcement, technical
assistance, education, and training to protect ground water quality
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
(6) AVAILABILITY FOR OBLIGATION.—The funds granted to each
State pursuant to this subsection in a fiscal year shall remain available for
obligation by such State for the fiscal year for which appropriated. The amount
of any such funds not obligated by the end of such fiscal year shall be
available to the Administrator for granting to other States under this subsection
in the next fiscal year.
(7) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.—States may use funds from
grants made pursuant to this section for financial assistance to persons only to
the extent that such assistance is related to the costs of demonstration
projects.
(8) SATISFACTORY PROGRESS.—No grant may be made under this
subsection in any fiscal year to a State which in the preceding fiscal year
received a grant under this subsection unless the Administrator determines
that such State made satisfactory progress in such preceding fiscal year in
meeting the schedule specified by such State under subsection (b)(2).
(9) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—No grant may be made to a State
under this subsection in any fiscal year unless such State enters into such
agreements with the Administrator as the Administrator may require to ensure
that such State will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources
for programs for controlling pollution added to the navigable waters in such
State from nonpoint sources and improving the quality of such waters at or
above the average level of such expenditures in its two fiscal years preceding
the date of enactment of this subsection.
(10) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.—The Administrator may
request such information, data, and reports as he considers necessary to
make the determination of continuing eligibility for grants under this section.
(11) REPORTING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Each State shall
report to the Administrator on an annual basis concerning (A) its progress in
meeting the schedule of milestones submitted pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(C)
 of this section, and (B) to the extent that appropriate information is available,
reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements in water
quality for those navigable waters or watersheds within the State which were
identified pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section resulting from
implementation of the management program.
(12) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—For purposes of
this subsection, administrative costs in the form of salaries, overhead, or
indirect costs for services provided and charged against activities and
programs carried out with a grant under this subsection shall not exceed in any
fiscal year 10 percent of the amount of the grant in such year, except that costs
of implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education, training,
technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology transfer
programs shall not be subject to this limitation.
(i) GRANTS FOR PROTECTING GROUNDWATER QUALITY.—
(1) ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS AND ACTIVITIES.—Upon application of a
State for which a report submitted under subsection (a) and a plan submitted
under subsection (b) is approved under this section, the Administrator shall
make grants under this subsection to such State for the purpose of assisting
such State in carrying out groundwater quality protection activities which the
Administrator determines will advance the State toward implementation of a
comprehensive nonpoint source pollution control program. Such activities shall
include, but not be limited to, research, planning, groundwater assessments,
demonstration programs, enforcement, technical assistance, education and
training to protect the quality of groundwater and to prevent contamination of
groundwater from nonpoint sources of pollution.
(2) APPLICATIONS.—An application for a grant under this subsection
shall be in such form and shall contain such information as the Administrator
may require.
(3) FEDERAL SHARE; MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The Federal share of
the cost of assisting a State in carrying out groundwater protection activities in
any fiscal year under this subsection shall be 50 percent of the costs incurred
by the State in carrying out such activities, except that the maximum amount of
Federal assistance which any State may receive under this subsection in any
fiscal year shall not exceed $150,000.
(4) REPORT.—The Administrator shall include in each report
transmitted under subsection (m) a report on the activities and programs
implemented under this subsection during the preceding fiscal year.
(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsections (h) and (i) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2023 through 2027; except that for each of such fiscal years not to exceed $7,500,000
may be made available to carry out subsection (i). Sums appropriated pursuant to this
subsection shall remain available until expended.
(k) CONSISTENCY OF OTHER PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS WITH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—The Administrator shall transmit to the Office of
Management and Budget and the appropriate Federal departments and agencies a list
of those assistance programs and development projects identified by each State under
subsection (b)(2)(F) for which individual assistance applications and projects will be
reviewed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372 as in effect on
September 17, 1983. Beginning not later than sixty days after receiving notification by
the Administrator, each Federal department and agency shall modify existing
regulations to allow States to review individual development projects and assistance
applications under the identified Federal assistance programs and shall accommodate,
according to the requirements and definitions of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on
September 17, 1983, the concerns of the State regarding the consistency of such
applications or projects with the State nonpoint source pollution management program.
(l) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—The Administrator shall collect and
make available, through publications and other appropriate means, information
pertaining to management practices and implementation methods, including, but not
limited to, (1) information concerning the costs and relative efficiencies of best
management practices for reducing nonpoint source pollution; and (2) available data
concerning the relationship between water quality and implementation of various
management practices to control nonpoint sources of pollution.
(m) REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATOR.—
(1) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not later than January 1, 1988, and each January 1
thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal year on the activities
and programs implemented under this section and the progress made in reducing
pollution in the navigable waters resulting from nonpoint sources and improving the
quality of such waters.
(2) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than January 1, 1990, the Administrator shall
transmit to Congress a final report on the activities carried out under this section. Such
report, at a minimum, shall—
(A) describe the management programs being implemented by the
States by types and amount of affected navigable waters, categories and
subcategories of nonpoint sources, and types of best management practices
being implemented;
(B) describe the experiences of the States in adhering to schedules
and implementing best management practices;
(C) describe the amount and purpose of grants awarded pursuant to
subsections (h) and (i) of this section;
(D) identify, to the extent that information is available, the progress
made in reducing pollutant loads and improving water quality in the navigable
waters;
(E) indicate what further actions need to be taken to attain and
maintain in those navigable waters (i) applicable water quality standards, and
(ii) the goals and requirements of this Act;
(F) include recommendations of the Administrator concerning future
programs (including enforcement programs) for controlling pollution from
nonpoint sources; and
(G) identify the activities and programs of departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities of the United States which are inconsistent with the
management programs submitted by the States and recommend modifications
so that such activities and programs are consistent with and assist the States
in implementation of such management programs.
 (n) SET ASIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL.—Not less than 5 percent of the
funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (j) for any fiscal year shall be available to
the Administrator to maintain personnel levels at the Environmental Protection Agency
at levels which are adequate to carry out this section in such year.

[33 U.S.C. 1329]

J: Section 319 of the amended Clean Water Act, as amended in accordance with this
Delphi research

Federal Water Pollution Control Act

[Chapter 758 of the 80th Congress]
[33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.]
[As Amended in May 2023, Enacted at the Start of the Fiscal
Year]

[Currency: This publication is a compilation of the text of Chapter 758 of

the 80th Congress. It was last amended by the public law listed in the As
Amended Through note above and below at the bottom of each page of
the pdf version and reflects current law through the date of the
enactment of the public law listed at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/compss]

[Note: While this publication does not represent an official version of any
Federal statute, substantial efforts have been made to ensure the
accuracy of its contents. The official version of Federal law is found in
the United States Statutes at Large and in the United States Code. The
legal effect to be given to the Statutes at Large and the United States
Code is established by statute (1 U.S.C. 112, 204).]

AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public

Health Service of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal Works
Agency, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives

of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

[Sec. 101. - Sec. 318.]

Sec 101. (7)(d)

(d) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter in this Act called
‘‘Administrator’’) shall administer this Act.

SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

(a) STATE ASSESSMENT REPORTS.—
(1) CONTENTS.—The Governor of each State shall, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit to the Regional
Administrator for approval, a report which—
(A) identifies those navigable waters within the State which,
without additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution,
cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water
quality standards or the goals and requirements of this Act;
(B) identifies those categories and subcategories of nonpoint
sources or, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources which add
significant pollution to each portion of the navigable waters identified
under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute to such portion
not meeting such water quality standards or such goals and
requirements;
(C) describes the process, including intergovernmental
coordination and public participation, for identifying best management
practices and measures to control each category and subcategory of
nonpoint sources and, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources
identified under subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the maximum
extent practicable, the level of pollution resulting from such category,
subcategory, or source; and
(D) identifies and describes State and local programs for
controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to, and improving
the quality of, each such portion of the navigable waters, including but
not limited to those programs which are receiving Federal assistance
under subsections (h) and (i).
(2) NONPOINT SOURCE INFRINGEMENT.—This section must
address all waterways that may be affected by nonpoint source pollution.
(A) Nonpoint source pollution is defined as pollutants
originating from diffuse sources that result in contamination of ground or
waterways, as a result of human activity or natural processes.
(3) INFORMATION USED IN PREPARATION.—In developing the
report required by this section, the State (A) may rely upon information
developed pursuant to sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), and 314, and other
information as appropriate, and (B) may utilize appropriate elements of the
waste treatment management plans developed pursuant to sections 208(b)
and 303, to the extent such elements are consistent with and fulfill the
requirements of this section.
(b) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Governor of each State, for that State or in
combination with adjacent States, shall, after notice and opportunity for public
comment, prepare and submit to the regional Administrator for approval a
management program which such State proposes to implement in the first
three fiscal years beginning after the date of submission of such management
program for controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to the navigable
waters within the State and improving the quality of such waters.
(2) POLLUTION REQUIREMENT.— In accordance with information
developed in sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), and 314, an individual state
must maintain nonpoint source pollution levels under the federally assigned
amount. This amount will be recalculated every other fiscal year and enforced
3 months into the fiscal year. This amount will be calculated on a pollution per
square feet basis, with a 5% margin of error in calculation.
(A) A cap on nonpoint source pollution amounts will be
enacted to eliminate traceable pollution levels by 2050. At the
commencement of 2050’s fiscal year, an Administrative meeting will
take place amending this bill.
(3) COOPERATION REQUIREMENT.— Failure to comply with
national nonpoint source pollution levels will result in a fee paid per excess
pollution per square feet unit. The lump sum of pollution fees will be paid from
state to Administrator and added to the grant system allotted in section (h).
Success in complying with national nonpoint source pollution levels will result
in a federal dividend provided by the grant system allotted in section (h). This
dividend will reflect pollution per square feet units under the national level, and
will be allotted towards constituencies by the Administrator.
(4) SPECIFIC CONTENTS.—Each management program proposed
for implementation under this subsection shall include each of the following:
(A) An identification of the best management practices and
measures which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant loadings
resulting from each category, subcategory, or particular nonpoint
source designated under paragraph (1)(B), taking into account the
impact of the practice on ground water quality.
(B) An identification of programs (including, as appropriate,
nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical
assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology
transfer, and demonstration projects) to achieve implementation of the
best management practices by the categories, subcategories, and
particular nonpoint sources designated under subparagraph (A).
(C) A schedule containing semiannual milestones for (i)
utilization of the program implementation methods identified in
subparagraph (B), and (ii) implementation of the best management
practices identified in subparagraph (A) by the categories,
subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources designated under
paragraph (1)(B). Such schedule shall provide for utilization of the best
management practices at the earliest practicable date.
(D) A certification of the attorney general of the State or States
(or the chief attorney of any State water pollution control agency which
has independent legal counsel) that the laws of the State or States, as
the case may be, provide adequate authority to implement such
management program or, if there is not such adequate authority, a list
of such additional authorities as will be necessary to implement such
 management program. A schedule and commitment by the State or
States to seek such additional authorities as expeditiously as
practicable.
(E) Sources of Federal and other assistance and funding
(other than assistance provided under subsections (h) and (i)) which
will be available in each of such fiscal years for supporting
implementation of such practices and measures and the purposes for
which such assistance will be used in each of such fiscal years.
(F) An identification of Federal financial assistance programs
and Federal development projects for which the State will review
individual assistance applications or development projects for their
effect on water quality pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Executive Order 12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983, to
determine whether such assistance applications or development
projects would be consistent with the program prepared under this
subsection; for the purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall
not be limited to the assistance programs or development projects
subject to Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs listed
in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which may
have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the State’s nonpoint
source pollution management program.
(5) UTILIZATION OF LOCAL AND PRIVATE EXPERTS.—In
developing and implementing a management program under this subsection, a
State shall, to the maximum extent practicable, involve local public and private
agencies and organizations which have expertise in control of nonpoint
sources of pollution.
(6) DEVELOPMENT ON WATERSHED BASIS.—A State shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a management program
under this subsection on a watershed-by-watershed basis within such State.
(c) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—
(1) REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION.—The regional Administrator from
each respected state will have authority over all management plan approvals
per section 319 (b). These Administrators and their offices will act as
management in which any report required be sent to by subsection (a).
Discrepancies between regional offices will be then reported to the
Administrator. The regional Administrator must also local, substate, and
interstate entities to actively implement nonpoint source pollution controls in
accordance with section 208, have worked jointly with the State on water
quality management planning under section 205(j), or have been designated
by the State legislative body or Governor as water quality management
planning agencies for their geographic areas.
(2) FEDERAL OVERSIGHT.— The Administrator will control the
allotting of categorical grant money given to the respective states and will
conduct one state update in a fiscal year to track national management.
(3) COOPERATION REQUIREMENT.—Any report required by
subsection (a) and any management program and report required by
subsection (b) shall be developed in cooperation with administrative entities
 which are actively planning for the implementation of nonpoint source pollution
controls and have either been certified by the regional Administrator.
(4) TIME PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS AND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—Each report and management program shall
be submitted to the Administrator during the 18-month period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this section.
(d) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF REPORTS AND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS.—
(1) DEADLINE.—Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 180 days
after the date of submission to the Administrator of any report or management
program under this section (other than subsections (h), (i), and (k)), the
Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such report or management
program, as the case may be. The Administrator may approve a portion of a
management program under this subsection. If the Administrator does not
disapprove a report, management program, or portion of a management
program in such 180-day period, such report, management program, or portion
shall be deemed approved for purposes of this section.
(2) PROCEDURE FOR DISAPPROVAL.—If, after notice and
opportunity for public comment and consultation with appropriate Federal and
State agencies and other interested persons, the regional Administrator
determines that—
(A) the proposed management program is not likely to satisfy,
in whole or in part, the goals and requirements of this Act;
(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate resources
are not available, to implement such program or portion;
(C) the schedule for implementing such program or portion is
not sufficiently expeditious; or
(D) the practices and measures proposed in such program or
portion are not adequate to reduce the level of pollution in navigable
waters in the State resulting from nonpoint sources and to improve the
quality of navigable waters in the State;
the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the proposed program
notify the State of any revisions or modifications necessary to obtain approval.
The State shall therefore have an additional 3 months to submit its revised
management program and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove such
revised program within three months of receipt.
(3) FAILURE OF STATE TO SUBMIT REPORT.—If a Governor of a
State does not submit the report required by subsection (a) within the period
specified by subsection (c)(2), the regional Administrator shall, in accordance
with the state’s legislature, draft and enforce a management program satisfying
the national requirements. The management program will be enforced by a
local public agency or organization, and the state shall then be subject to
adhering to the pollution tax enforced in subsection (h).
(e) LOCAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.— If a
State fails to submit a management program under subsection (b) or the Administrator
does not approve such a management program, a local public agency or organization
which has expertise in, and authority to, control water pollution resulting from nonpoint
sources in any area of such State, is subject to submit one. After development of such
management program, such agency or organization shall submit such management
program to the Administrator for approval. If the Administrator approves such
management program, such agency or organization shall be eligible to receive
financial assistance under subsection (h) for implementation of such management
program as if such agency or organization were a State for which a report submitted
under subsection (a) and a management program submitted under subsection (b) were
approved under this section. Such financial assistance shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions as assistance provided to a State under subsection (h).
(f) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE.—Upon request of a State, the
Administrator may provide technical assistance to such State in developing a
management program approved under subsection (b) for those portions of the
navigable waters requested by such State.
(g) INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.—
(1) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE; NOTIFICATION; PURPOSE.—
If any portion of the navigable waters in any State which is implementing a
management program approved under this section is not meeting applicable
water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this Act as a result, in
whole or in part, of pollution from nonpoint sources in another State, such
State may petition the Administrator to convene, and the Administrator shall
convene, a management conference of all States which contribute significant
pollution resulting from nonpoint sources to such portion. If, on the basis of
information available, the Administrator determines that a State is not meeting
applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this Act as
a result, in whole or in part, of significant pollution from nonpoint sources in
another State, the Administrator shall notify such States. The Administrator
may convene a management conference under this paragraph not later than
180 days after giving such notification, whether or not the State which is not
meeting such standards requests such conference. The purpose of such
conference shall be to develop an agreement among such States to reduce
the level of pollution in such portion resulting from nonpoint sources and to
improve the water quality of such portion. Nothing in such agreement shall
supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water which have been
established by interstate water compacts, Supreme Court decrees, or State
water laws. This subsection shall not apply to any pollution which is subject to
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The requirement that the
Administrator convene a management conference shall not be subject to the
provisions of section 505 of this Act.
(2) STATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENT.—To the
extent that the States reach agreement through such conference, the
management programs of the States which are parties to such agreements
and which contribute significant pollution to the navigable waters or portions
thereof not meeting applicable water quality standards or goals and
requirements of this Act will be revised to reflect such agreement. Such
management programs shall be consistent with Federal and State law.
(h) GRANT PROGRAM.—
(1) GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS.—Upon application of a State for which a report submitted under
subsection (a) and a management program submitted under subsection (b) is
approved under this section, the regional Administrator shall make grants,
subject to such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers
appropriate, under this subsection to such State for the purpose of assisting
the State in implementing such management program. Funds reserved
pursuant to section 205(j)(5) of this Act may be used to develop and implement
such management programs.
(A) As per section 205(j)(5), the funds will be utilized towards
these management programs. This fund will also absorb the money
collected as pollution fees per section 319(b). The fees will then be
redistributed towards their respective states.
(2) DIVIDEND.— The Federal funds in section 205(j)(5) will act as
dividends towards state and regional constituents based on
cooperation to section 319(b)(2). Success in complying with national
nonpoint source pollution levels will result in a federal dividend
provided by the grant system allotted in section (h). This dividend will
reflect pollution per square feet units under the national level, and will
be allotted towards constituencies by the Administrator, as reflected in
section 319(b)(3).
(2) APPLICATIONS.—An application for a grant under this subsection
in any fiscal year shall be in such form and shall contain such other information
as the Administrator may require, including an identification and description of
the best management practices and measures which the State proposes to
assist, encourage, or require in such year with the Federal assistance to be
provided under the grant.
(3) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of each
management program implemented with Federal assistance under this
subsection in any fiscal year shall not exceed 60 percent of the cost incurred
by the State in implementing such management program and shall be made
on condition that the non-Federal share is provided from non-Federal sources.
(4) LIMITATION ON GRANT AMOUNTS.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection, not more than 10 percent of the amount
appropriated to carry out this subsection may be used to make grants to any
one State, including any grants to any local public agency or organization with
authority to control pollution from nonpoint sources in any area of such State.
(5) PRIORITY FOR EFFECTIVE MECHANISMS.—For each fiscal
year beginning after September 30, 1987, the Administrator may give priority in
making grants under this subsection, and shall give consideration in
determining the Federal share of any such grant, to States which have
implemented or are proposing to implement management programs which
will—
(A) control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint source
pollution problems, including, but not limited to, problems resulting
from mining activities;
(B) implement innovative methods or practices for controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution, including regulatory programs where the
Administrator deems appropriate;
(C) control interstate nonpoint source pollution problems; or
 (D) carry out ground water quality protection activities which
the Administrator determines are part of a comprehensive nonpoint
source pollution control program, including research, planning, ground
water assessments, demonstration programs, enforcement, technical
assistance, education, and training to protect ground water quality
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
(6) AVAILABILITY FOR OBLIGATION.—The funds granted to each
State pursuant to this subsection in a fiscal year shall remain available for
obligation by such State for the fiscal year for which appropriated. The amount
of any such funds not obligated by the end of such fiscal year shall be
available to the Administrator for granting to other States under this subsection
in the next fiscal year.
(7) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.—States may use funds from
grants made pursuant to this section for financial assistance to persons only to
the extent that such assistance is related to the costs of demonstration
projects.
(8) SATISFACTORY PROGRESS.—No grant may be made under this
subsection in any fiscal year to a State which in the preceding fiscal year
received a grant under this subsection unless the Administrator determines
that such State made satisfactory progress in such preceding fiscal year in
meeting the schedule specified by such State under subsection (b)(2).
(9) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—No grant may be made to a State
under this subsection in any fiscal year unless such State enters into such
agreements with the Administrator as the Administrator may require to ensure
that such State will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources
for programs for controlling pollution added to the navigable waters in such
State from nonpoint sources and improving the quality of such waters at or
above the average level of such expenditures in its two fiscal years preceding
the date of enactment of this subsection.
(10) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.—The Administrator may
request such information, data, and reports as he considers necessary to
make the determination of continuing eligibility for grants under this section.
(11) REPORTING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Each State shall
report to the Administrator on an annual basis concerning (A) its progress in
meeting the schedule of milestones submitted pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(C)
of this section, and (B) to the extent that appropriate information is available,
reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements in water
quality for those navigable waters or watersheds within the State which were
identified pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section resulting from
implementation of the management program.
(12) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—For purposes of
this subsection, administrative costs in the form of salaries, overhead, or
indirect costs for services provided and charged against activities and
programs carried out with a grant under this subsection shall not exceed in any
fiscal year 10 percent of the amount of the grant in such year, except that costs
of implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education, training,
technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology transfer
programs shall not be subject to this limitation.
 (i) GRANTS FOR PROTECTING GROUNDWATER QUALITY.—
(1) ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS AND ACTIVITIES.—Upon application of a
State for which a report submitted under subsection (a) and a plan submitted
under subsection (b) is approved under this section, the Administrator shall
make grants under this subsection to such State for the purpose of assisting
such State in carrying out groundwater quality protection activities which the
Administrator determines will advance the State toward implementation of a
comprehensive nonpoint source pollution control program. Such activities shall
include, but not be limited to, research, planning, groundwater assessments,
demonstration programs, enforcement, technical assistance, education and
training to protect the quality of groundwater and to prevent contamination of
groundwater from nonpoint sources of pollution.
(2) APPLICATIONS.—An application for a grant under this subsection
shall be in such form and shall contain such information as the Administrator
may require.
(3) FEDERAL SHARE; MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The Federal share of
the cost of assisting a State in carrying out groundwater protection activities in
any fiscal year under this subsection shall be 50 percent of the costs incurred
by the State in carrying out such activities, except that the maximum amount of
Federal assistance which any State may receive under this subsection in any
fiscal year shall not exceed $150,000.
(4) REPORT.—The Administrator shall include in each report
transmitted under subsection (m) a report on the activities and programs
implemented under this subsection during the preceding fiscal year.
(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsections (h) and (i) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2023 through 2027; except that for each of such fiscal years not to exceed $7,500,000
may be made available to carry out subsection (i). Sums appropriated pursuant to this
subsection shall remain available until expended.
(k) CONSISTENCY OF OTHER PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS WITH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—The Administrator shall transmit to the Office of
Management and Budget and the appropriate Federal departments and agencies a list
of those assistance programs and development projects identified by each State under
subsection (b)(2)(F) for which individual assistance applications and projects will be
reviewed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372 as in effect on
September 17, 1983. Beginning not later than sixty days after receiving notification by
the Administrator, each Federal department and agency shall modify existing
regulations to allow States to review individual development projects and assistance
applications under the identified Federal assistance programs and shall accommodate,
according to the requirements and definitions of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on
September 17, 1983, the concerns of the State regarding the consistency of such
applications or projects with the State nonpoint source pollution management program.
(l) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—The Administrator shall collect and
make available, through publications and other appropriate means, information
pertaining to management practices and implementation methods, including, but not
limited to, (1) information concerning the costs and relative efficiencies of best
management practices for reducing nonpoint source pollution; and (2) available data
concerning the relationship between water quality and implementation of various
management practices to control nonpoint sources of pollution.
(m) REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATOR.—
(1) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not later than January 1, 1988, and each January 1
thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal year on the activities
and programs implemented under this section and the progress made in reducing
pollution in the navigable waters resulting from nonpoint sources and improving the
quality of such waters.
(2) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than January 1, 1990, the Administrator shall
transmit to Congress a final report on the activities carried out under this section. Such
report, at a minimum, shall—
(A) describe the management programs being implemented by the
States by types and amount of affected navigable waters, categories and
subcategories of nonpoint sources, and types of best management practices
being implemented;
(B) describe the experiences of the States in adhering to schedules
and implementing best management practices;
(C) describe the amount and purpose of grants awarded pursuant to
subsections (h) and (i) of this section;
(D) identify, to the extent that information is available, the progress
made in reducing pollutant loads and improving water quality in the navigable
waters;
(E) indicate what further actions need to be taken to attain and
maintain in those navigable waters (i) applicable water quality standards, and
(ii) the goals and requirements of this Act;
(F) include recommendations of the Administrator concerning future
programs (including enforcement programs) for controlling pollution from
nonpoint sources; and
(G) identify the activities and programs of departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities of the United States which are inconsistent with the
management programs submitted by the States and recommend modifications
so that such activities and programs are consistent with and assist the States
in implementation of such management programs.
(n) SET ASIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL.—Not less than 5 percent of the
funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (j) for any fiscal year shall be available to
the Administrator to maintain personnel levels at the Environmental Protection Agency
at levels which are adequate to carry out this section in such year.

[33 U.S.C. 1329]

K: Cited interview response stated by legislative director

Question asked by researcher: “In your opinion, could an incentive scheme (i.e. implementing
a payment system towards states who follow regulations, or collect payment from those who
don't) be an effective way to encourage state programs to improve their NPS environment
management programs?”

Response from legislative director: “Incentives are really powerful ways to get results.
Making payments to states who follow regulations is probably much easier than trying
to enforce penalties on those who don't. Either route might invite court challenges,
though, as we've seen with Medicaid (where some states have refused to participate
even though they would forgo Federal money). The key, in my opinion, is to make sure
that the voters see that they will personally benefit from the regulations being
followed.”

L: Cited interview response stated by environmental lobbyist

Question asked by researcher: “When lobbying for pieces of environmental legislation, what
aspects of the legislation are essential for approval from both parties?”

Response from environmental lobbyist: “To get bipartisan buy-in, we look for ways to
appeal to the values of both parties. In terms of values, we like to see legislation that
attracts progressives by achieving fairness and support for the disadvantaged, while
also attracting conservatives by emphasizing freedom of choice and provisions that
employ market mechanisms.”