The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For these waters, states must establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants to ensure that water quality standards can be attained. Implementation was dormant until states and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were prodded by numerous lawsuits. The TMDL program has become controversial, in part because of requirements and costs now facing states to implement this 30-year old provision of the law. In 1999, EPA proposed regulatory changes to strengthen the TMDL program. Industries, cities farmers and others may be required to use new pollution controls to meet TMDL requirements. EPA's proposal was widely criticised and congressional interest has been high. This book explores the lingering dispute between states and industry groups, beginning from the Clinton administration and stretching all the way to the present. However, Congress recognised in the Act that, in many cases, pollution controls implemented by industry and cities would be insufficient, due to pollutant contributions from other unregulated sources.

This report summarizes the Clean Air Act and its major regulatory requirements. It excerpts, with minor modifications, the Clean Air Act chapter of CRS Report RL30798, which summarizes a dozen environmental statutes that form the basis for the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency.

In the past, the oil and gas industry considered gas locked in tight, impermeable shale uneconomical to produce. However, advances in directional well drilling and reservoir stimulation have dramatically increased gas production from unconventional shales. The United States Geological Survey estimates that 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may be technically recoverable from these shales. Recent high natural gas prices have also stimulated interest in developing gas shales. Although natural gas prices fell dramatically in 2009, there is an expectation that the demand for natural gas will increase. Developing these shales comes with some controversy, though. The hydraulic fracturing treatments used to stimulate gas production from shale have stirred environmental concerns over excessive water consumption, drinking water well contamination, and surface water contamination from both drilling activities and fracturing fluid disposal. The saline "flowback" water pumped back to the surface after the fracturing process poses a significant environmental management challenge in the Marcellus region. The flowback's high content of total dissolved solids (TDS) and other contaminants must be disposed of or adequately treated before discharged to surface waters. The federal Clean Water Act and state laws regulate the discharge of this flowback water and other drilling wastewater to surface waters, while the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates deep well injection of such wastewater. Hydraulically fractured wells are also subject to various state regulations. Historically, the EPA has not regulated hydraulic fracturing, and the 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted hydraulic fracturing from SDWA regulation. Recently introduced bills would make hydraulic fracturing subject to regulation under SDWA, while another bill would affirm the current regulatory exemption. Gas shale development takes place on both private and state-owned lands. Royalty rates paid to state and private landowners for shale gas leases range from 121/2% to 20%. The four states (New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia) discussed in this report have shown significant increases in the amounts paid as signing bonuses and increases in royalty rates. Although federal lands also overlie gas shale resources, the leasing restrictions and the low resource-potential may diminish development prospects on some federal lands. The practice of severing mineral rights from surface ownership is not unique to the gas shale development. Mineral owners retain the right to access surface property to develop their holdings. Some landowners, however, may not have realized the intrusion that could result from mineral development on their property. Although a gas-transmission pipeline-network is in place to supply the northeast United States, gas producers would need to construct an extensive network of gathering pipelines and supporting infrastructure to move the gas from the well fields to the transmission pipelines, as is the case for developing any new well fiel

As reported July 10, 2012, by the House Committee on Appropriations, Title II of H.R. 6091, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Act, 2013, included a total of $7.06 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2013, $1.28 billion (15.5%) below the President's FY2013 request of $8.34 billion, and $1.39 billion (16.5%) below the FY2012 enacted appropriation of $8.45 billion. Although the House committee-reported bill proposed an overall decrease for EPA, it included both decreases and increases in funding for many individual programs and activities in the eight appropriations accounts that fund the agency compared with the FY2013 requested and FY2012 enacted levels. Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA accounts within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations. The House committee-reported bill would decrease funding for seven of the eight EPA appropriations accounts compared to the President's FY2013 request, and for six of the accounts relative to FY2012 enacted levels. The largest decrease in H.R. 2061 as reported was for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account: $2.60 billion for FY2013, compared to $3.36 billion requested (23% decrease) and $3.61 billion for FY2012 (28% decrease). This account consistently contains the largest portion of the agency's funding among the eight accounts. The majority of the proposed decrease is attributed to a combined $507.0 million reduction in funding for grants that provide financial assistance to states to help capitalize Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). Respectively, these funds finance local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. H.R. 6091 as reported included $689.0 million for Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $829.0 million for Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants, compared to $1.18 billion and $850.0 million requested for FY2013, and $1.47 billion and $917.9 million appropriated for FY2012, respectively. The STAG account also includes funds to support "categorical" grant programs. States and tribes use these grants to support the day-to-day implementation of environmental laws, such as monitoring, permitting and standard setting, training, and other pollution control and prevention activities, and these grants also assist multimedia projects. The $994.0 million total included for FY2013 for categorical grants in H.R. 6091 as reported is $208.4 million less than the $1.20 billion requested for FY2013, and $94.8 million below the $1.09 billion FY2012 enacted amount. Other prominent issues that have received attention within the context of EPA appropriations include the level of funding for implementing certain air pollution control requirements including greenhouse gas emission regulations, climate change research and related activities, cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program, cleanup of sites that tend to be less hazardous (referred to as brownfields), and cleanup of petroleum from leaking underground tanks. Funding needs for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and other geographic-specific water programs, also have received attention. In addition to funding priorities among the many pollution control programs and activities, several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions continue to be controversial in the FY2013 appropriations. H.R. 6091 as reported included a number of provisions similar to those considered in the FY2012 appropriations debate (some of which were adopted for FY2012) that would restrict the use of funding for the development, implementation, and enforcement of certain regulatory actions that cut across the various pollution control statutes' programs and initiatives.

Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution control statutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules. The House has conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th Congress, and has approved several bills that would overturn specific regulations or limit the agency's authority. Particular attention is being paid to the Clean Air Act, under which EPA has moved forward with the first federal controls on emissions of greenhouse gases and also addressed emissions of conventional pollutants from a number of industries. Environmental groups disagree that the agency has overreached, and EPA states that critics' focus on the cost of controls obscures the benefits of new regulations, which, it estimates, far exceed the costs; and it maintains that pollution control is an important source of economic activity, exports, and American jobs. Further, the agency and its supporters say that EPA is carrying out the mandates detailed by Congress in the federal environmental statutes. This report provides background information on recent EPA regulatory activity to help address these issues. It examines 40 major or controversial regulatory actions taken by or under development at EPA since January 2009, providing details on the regulatory action itself, presenting an estimated timeline for completion of the rule (including identification of related court or statutory deadlines), and, in general, providing EPA's estimates of costs and benefits, where available. The report includes tables that show which rules have been finalized and which remain under development. The report also discusses factors that affect the timeframe in which regulations take effect, including statutory and judicial deadlines, public comment periods, judicial review, and permitting procedures, the net results of which are that existing facilities are likely to have several years before being required to comply with most of the regulatory actions under discussion. Unable to account for such factors, which will vary from case to case, timelines that show dates for proposal and promulgation of EPA standards effectively underestimate the complexities of the regulatory process and overstate the near-term impact of many of the regulatory actions.

Congress enacted the last major amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1987 (P.L. 100-4). Since then, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and others have been working to implement the many program changes and additions mandated in the law. At issue today - more than 30 years after enactment of the core law - is what progress is being made to achieve its goals. In general, states and environmental groups fault EPA for delays in issuing guidance and providing assistance to carry out the law. EPA and others are critical of states, in turn, for not reaching beyond conventional knowledge and approaches to address their water quality problems. Environmental advocates have been criticized for insufficient recognition of EPA's and states' need for flexibility to implement the act. Finally, Congress has been criticized for not providing adequate resources to meet EPA and state needs. Appropriations for clean water programs, especially water infrastructure, are a continuing issue.

Several major statutes form the legal basis for the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many of these have been amended several times. The current provisions of each are briefly summarised in this report. The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) seeks to prevent pollution through reduced generation of pollutants at their point of origin. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set mobile source limits, ambient air quality standards, hazardous air pollutant emission standards, standards for new pollution sources, and significant deterioration requirements; and to focus on areas that do not attain standards. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a sewage treatment construction grants program, and a regulatory and enforcement program for discharges of wastes into U.S. waters. Focusing on the regulation of the intentional disposal of materials into ocean waters and authorising related research is the Ocean Dumping Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishes primary drinking water standards, regulates underground injection disposal practices, and establishes a groundwater control program. The Solid Waste Disposal Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provide regulation of solid and hazardous waste, while the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund, provides authority for the federal government to respond to releases of hazardous substances, and established a fee-maintained fund to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites. The authority to collect fees has expired, and funding is now provided from general revenues. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires industrial reporting of toxic releases and encourages planning to respond to chemical emergencies. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the testing of chemicals and their use, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) governs pesticide products and their use.