Washington, DC – Republican leaders of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and witnesses at a Clean Water Act (CWA) hearing today agreed that state budget difficulties and poor data collection make it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement of the Act.
“We all support the goal of clean water for our communities and environment, and for holding accountable those who flaunt the laws and regulations designed to protect our waters,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Republican Leader John L. Mica (R-FL). “Federal and state governments cannot be everywhere at all times, so we must do what we can with the taxpayer dollars available to cost-effectively protect our waters and enforce the laws. Due to the difficult economy, state budget cuts unfortunately can impact enforcement.”
“States’ enforcement responsibilities have become even more challenging in the face of budget deficits affecting all but two States,” said R. Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Environmental Council of the States, in written testimony. “This budget situation has a direct impact on all work we do, including enforcement and will continue to have a negative effect until it is remedied by increased funding or reduced workload.”
Republican members said one problem that must be addressed is one of data collection. “We need to ensure that we have adequate data so we can be a better judge of the Environmental Protection Agency’s compliance and enforcement programs,” Mica said.
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member John Boozman (R-AR) elaborated on the need to collect better data.
“The database utilized by the Environmental Protection Agency is full of anomalies, which calls into question the value of the data being collected,” Boozman said. “For purposes of collected data, compliance, and enforcement, the Agency divides National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits into two categories: those that involve major discharge flows of one million gallons or more and those with less volumes of flow. There are 6,700 individual permits in the major category and 39,000 in the non-major category involving less effluent discharge.
“But the Agency collects these data differently for major and non-major discharge permit holders. And, there are differences in how states report information to the Agency. It is not always clear whether a violation is a paperwork violation or something far more serious,” said Boozman.
According to witness Tom Porta, President of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, “enforcement information has always been available to the public through State records and databases, but the data has rarely been complete or accurate through Federal data systems.”
Boozman continued, “EPA itself acknowledges there are problems with the database.
“Until we solve the issues surrounding the database utilized by the Agency, we will be unable to determine the effectiveness of the compliance and enforcement programs.
“Congress and the Administration should continue to focus on water quality violations, not paperwork errors. The Environmental Protection Agency and the states should work quickly to resolve water quality violations through compliance assistance. Only when compliance assistance does not resolve the violation, the Agency and the states should then move towards more formal enforcement actions,” Boozman said.
Jay P. Shimshack, Assistant Professor of Economics at Tulane University, who has been conducting research on Clean Water Act enforcement and compliance for over ten years, said, “significant improvements in environmental quality may be achieved with modest additional investments,” and “without dramatically altering CWA provisions or management.”
Rep. Boozman added, “Mr. Chairman, we stand ready to work with you and the Administration to ensure that the compliance and enforcement regime authorized by the Clean Water Act is robust and responsive to the rapidly changing needs of the nation.”
# # #