Clean Water Act: Proposed Revisions to EPA Regulations to Clean Up Polluted Waters: RCED-00-206R

June 2000
GAO Reports;6/21/2000, p1
Government Document
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the economic and compliance issues associated with two proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to clean up polluted waters, focusing on: (1) the reasonableness of EPA's economic analyses for the two proposed regulations; and (2) whether EPA's determinations under the Unfunded Mandated Reform Act of 1995 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act were adequately supported. GAO noted that: (1) there were limitations with EPA's economic analyses of the proposed regulations for the total maximum daily load (TMDL) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs that raise questions about their reasonableness and about the determinations that EPA has based on them; (2) the outcomes of the analyses were heavily influenced by a number of key assumptions; (3) in the case of the TMDL program, for example, EPA assumed that states are essentially in full compliance with current regulations, or will be as a result of existing statutory and regulatory requirements; (4) EPA estimated only the costs that would result from the new requirements in the proposed regulations; (5) however, compliance with existing TMDL regulations has been problematic, and future compliance in the absence of the proposed regulation is uncertain; (6) GAO found similar uncertainties with key "baseline" assumptions that affect the cost estimates associated with the proposed NPDES regulation; (7) the key water quality data available to EPA to identify the number of waters not meeting standards and the number of TMDLs that will be needed are incomplete, inconsistently collected by states, and sometimes based on outdated and unconfirmed sources; (8) as a result of these limitations, EPA's cost estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty; (9) EPA provided little information on the benefits associated with the proposed regulations; (10) without information on both costs and benefits, it is difficult to confirm that the regulation is economically justified; (11) given the uncertainties surrounding EPA's cost estimates, GAO disagrees with EPA that EPA's analyses adequately supported its determination under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 that more detailed analyses of costs, benefits, and alternatives were not needed for either of the proposed regulations; (12) however, in the case of requirements for additional analyses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, case law supports EPA's determination that because its proposed revisions to both regulations do not directly regulate small entities, additional analyses were not required; (13) several court decisions have ruled in analogous situations that agencies' regulations were not subject to the Flexibility Act's requirements for additional analysis; and (14) courts have held that where a proposed regulation does not impose any regulatory requirements at all on any entities, but instead expands agency authority to take future discretionary action, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required.


Related Articles

  • Environmental Protection: EPA's and States' Efforts to Focus State Enforcement Programs on Results: RCED-98-113.  // GAO Reports;5/27/1998, p1 

    Most major environmental statutes allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delegate the responsibility for key programs to qualified states. In order for states to obtain such responsibility, they generally are required to have adequate authority to inspect, monitor, and enforce the...

  • SEEKING A SENSIBLE WATER POLICY. Bozek, C. Richard // Electric Perspectives;May/Jun2007, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p136 

    The author discusses the provisions of section 316(b) of the U.S. Clean Water Act. According to the author, Section 316(b) requires that cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. He stated that in 2004, the U.S....

  • One Law for Them, Another for Us.  // National Review;2/12/1996, Vol. 48 Issue 2, p14 

    The article reports on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) failure to produce cost/benefit studies on the impact of the Clean Air Act as is required by the 1990 amendments to the law. This failure on the part of EPA is a clear contempt of the law. In May 1993 EPA...

  • Environmental Protection Issue Area Plan: Fiscal Years 1998-2000--1999 Update: IAP-98-18. Guerrero, Peter F. // GAO Reports;8/1/1998, p1 

    GAO provided an update on its Environmental Protection issue area plan for fiscal years 1998-2000. GAO plans to examine: (1) the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) progress in directing its resources to areas where they can have the greatest impact in protecting the environment and public...

  • EPA finalizes manure rules for CAFOs. Geiselman, Bruce // Waste News;11/24/2008, Vol. 14 Issue 15, p11 

    The article reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a rule requiring concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to safely manage manure. The EPA estimates that the CAFO regulations will prevent 56 million pounds of phosphorus, 110 million pounds of nitrogen...

  • EPA Revises SPCC Plan Regulations. Amandes, Christopher B.; Woodworth, Thomas C. // Venulex Legal Summaries;2002 Q3, p1 

    The article focuses on the final rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amending the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations declared under the authority of Section 311 (j) of the Clean Water Act. It presents the summary of the significant changes made by the rule. EPA...

  • Environmental Protection Issue Area: Active Assignments: AA-98-20(3).  // GAO Reports;8/1/1998, p1 

    GAO provided information on its active assignments in the Environmental Protection issue area as of August 17, 1998.

  • Environmental Protection: Allegations by EPA Employees: RCED-99-61R.  // GAO Reports;1/29/1999, p1 

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on a letter published in the Washington Times by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees and others having business with the agency alleging mismanagement by EPA and retaliation against whistleblowers, focusing on: (1)...

  • Advisory Panel Split on Superfund's Future. Sissell, Kara // Chemical Week;9/17/2003, Vol. 165 Issue 32, p48 

    Reports that the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy panel on Superfund is having problem reaching a consensus on how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can administrate the federal Superfund trust. Recommendations from the panel about funding the program; Recommendation...


Read the Article

Other Topics