{ "id": "R44223", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44223", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 587203, "date": "2017-03-14", "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:44:25.768284", "title": "EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure", "summary": "For several years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working with states and cities to develop and implement new approaches that will achieve water quality goals cost-effectively and in a manner that \u201caddresses the most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first.\u201d Two recent EPA initiatives are an integrated planning policy and a framework policy for assessing a community\u2019s financial capability to meet objectives and requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).\nPressed by municipalities about the financial challenges that they face in addressing needs for wastewater and stormwater control projects, in 2012 EPA issued an integrated permitting and planning policy. The intention of the policy is to provide communities with flexibility to prioritize and sequence needed water infrastructure investments so that limited public dollars can be invested in ways that each municipality finds most valuable. \nWater utilities and municipalities have welcomed the opportunity for flexibility under the integrated planning policy. But they have sought clarification of a number of issues, including EPA and state roles in developing integrated plans. A major point of contention between EPA and local government stakeholders has been the agency\u2019s reliance on administrative orders or judicially approved consent decrees to codify integrated pollution reduction plans, rather than through modification of CWA permits. City and town officials say that they would prefer that EPA allow compliance flexibility through permits, rather than subjecting cities and towns to legally binding consent decrees with penalties and fines for noncompliance. The agency takes the position that both enforcement and permits are necessary, depending on individual circumstances. EPA typically uses a consent decree after periods of permit noncompliance.\nWhile integrated planning may be helpful in identifying communities\u2019 relative priorities, a long-standing concern for local governments is EPA\u2019s process for evaluating how much communities can afford for CWA-mandated and other water infrastructure improvements. EPA has worked with communities to refine how the agency determines when a project is affordable for individual communities, because affordability considerations can influence schedules established for a community to meet CWA requirements. In 2014, EPA released a Financial Capability Assessment Framework that identifies a range of information related to a community\u2019s financial strength that may help provide a complete picture of cities\u2019 financial capabilities in relation to water infrastructure investments.\nState and local governments generally support EPA\u2019s efforts to encourage ways for communities to prioritize their CWA infrastructure investments and to consider a wide range of factors that affect affordability. Nevertheless, cities and states have continuing concerns with aspects of both policies. For example, some criticize EPA for relying in part on Median Household Income (MHI) as a measure of community affordability. Further, cities are critical that integrated plans that have been approved so far have been incorporated only into new or amended consent decrees, not CWA permits.\nEPA\u2019s integrated planning process and water infrastructure affordability are issues of interest to legislators. In recent years, Members have offered bills that would address these issues in different ways. Some bills have sought to codify EPA\u2019s integrated planning approach\u2014as written in the 2012 framework\u2014into the CWA. Other proposals would go beyond codifying the integrated planning approach by including other provisions that alter the CWA\u2019s existing framework to varying degrees (e.g., H.R. 465 in the 115th Congress). In general, some environmental groups have opposed such changes proposed in bills from prior Congresses, but municipalities have generally supported the additional flexibility.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44223", "sha1": "388059f95a1047ce197281dfcd6dda95730acf5e", "filename": "files/20170314_R44223_388059f95a1047ce197281dfcd6dda95730acf5e.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44223", "sha1": "eb36f614476e22fb68b71f2da5f9924aad7cf16d", "filename": "files/20170314_R44223_eb36f614476e22fb68b71f2da5f9924aad7cf16d.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4929, "name": "Water Quality" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 456001, "date": "2016-09-22", "retrieved": "2016-09-30T17:25:40.756987", "title": "EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure", "summary": "For several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working with states and cities to develop and implement new approaches that will achieve water quality goals cost-effectively and in a manner that addresses the most pressing water infrastructure problems first. Two recent EPA initiatives are an integrated planning policy and a framework policy for assessing a community\u2019s financial capability to meet objectives and requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).\nPressed by municipalities about the challenges and costs that they face in addressing needs for wastewater and stormwater control projects, in 2012 EPA issued an integrated permitting and planning policy. The intention of the policy is to provide communities with flexibility to prioritize and sequence needed water infrastructure investments so that limited public dollars can be invested in ways that each municipality finds most valuable. \nWater utilities and municipalities have welcomed the opportunity for flexibility under the integrated planning policy. But they have sought clarification of a number of issues, including EPA and state roles in developing integrated plans. A major point of contention between EPA and local government stakeholders has been the agency\u2019s reliance on administrative orders or judicially approved consent decrees to codify integrated pollution reduction plans, rather than through modification of CWA permits. City and town officials say that they would prefer that EPA allow compliance flexibility through permits, rather than subjecting cities and towns to legally binding consent decrees with penalties and fines for noncompliance. The agency takes the position that both enforcement and permits are necessary, depending on individual circumstances.\nWhile integrated planning may be helpful in identifying communities\u2019 relative priorities, a long-standing concern for local governments is EPA\u2019s process for evaluating how much communities can afford for CWA-mandated and other water infrastructure improvements. EPA has worked with communities to refine how the agency determines when a project is affordable for individual communities, because affordability considerations can influence schedules established for a community to meet CWA requirements. In 2014, EPA released a Financial Capability Assessment Framework that identifies a range of information related to a community\u2019s financial strength that may help provide a complete picture of cities\u2019 financial capability in relation to water infrastructure investments.\nState and local governments generally support EPA\u2019s efforts to encourage ways for communities to prioritize their CWA infrastructure investments and to consider a wide range of factors that affect affordability. Nevertheless, cities and states have continuing concerns with aspects of both policies. For example, some criticize EPA for relying in part on Median Household Income (MHI) as a measure of community affordability. Further, cities are critical that integrated plans that have been approved so far have been incorporated only into new or amended consent decrees, not CWA permits.\nEPA\u2019s integrated planning process and water infrastructure affordability are issues of interest to legislators. For example, bills have been introduced in the 114th Congress that propose to codify an integrated approach to permitting and planning of water infrastructure projects (H.R. 1093/S. 2358, H.R. 1705, S. 2768, and S. 2848, which the Senate passed on September 15, 2016). House and Senate committees have held hearings on EPA\u2019s integrated planning policy and the agency\u2019s approach to determining a community\u2019s ability to afford water infrastructure projects.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44223", "sha1": "da46eb6c670cfc65b0354e2145dea71fcf4e30f8", "filename": "files/20160922_R44223_da46eb6c670cfc65b0354e2145dea71fcf4e30f8.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44223", "sha1": "e8d774d11c44e02362e9399b2bbd8454223ffb7c", "filename": "files/20160922_R44223_e8d774d11c44e02362e9399b2bbd8454223ffb7c.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2647, "name": "Water Quality Protection" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452214, "date": "2016-05-02", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:14:41.489941", "title": "EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure", "summary": "For several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working with states and cities to develop and implement new approaches that will achieve water quality goals cost-effectively and in a manner that addresses the most pressing water infrastructure problems first. Two recent EPA initiatives are an integrated planning policy and a framework policy for assessing a community\u2019s financial capability to meet objectives and requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).\nPressed by municipalities about the challenges and costs that they face in addressing needs for wastewater and stormwater control projects, in 2012 EPA issued an integrated permitting and planning policy. The intention of the policy is to provide communities with flexibility to prioritize and sequence needed water infrastructure investments so that limited public dollars can be invested in ways that each municipality finds most valuable. \nWater utilities and municipalities have welcomed the opportunity for flexibility under the integrated planning policy. But they have sought clarification of a number of issues, including EPA and state roles in developing integrated plans. A major point of contention between EPA and local government stakeholders has been the agency\u2019s reliance on administrative orders or judicially approved consent decrees to codify integrated pollution reduction plans, rather than through modification of CWA permits. City and town officials say that they would prefer that EPA allow compliance flexibility through permits, rather than subjecting cities and towns to legally binding consent decrees with penalties and fines for noncompliance. The agency takes the position that both enforcement and permits are necessary, depending on individual circumstances.\nWhile integrated planning may be helpful in identifying communities\u2019 relative priorities, a long-standing concern for local governments is EPA\u2019s process for evaluating how much communities can afford for CWA-mandated and other water infrastructure improvements. EPA has worked with communities to refine how the agency determines when a project is affordable for individual communities, because affordability considerations can influence schedules established for a community to meet CWA requirements. In 2014, EPA released a Financial Capability Assessment Framework that identifies a range of information related to a community\u2019s financial strength that may help provide a complete picture of cities\u2019 financial capability in relation to water infrastructure investments.\nState and local governments generally support EPA\u2019s efforts to encourage ways for communities to prioritize their CWA infrastructure investments and to consider a wide range of factors that affect affordability. Nevertheless, cities and states have continuing concerns with aspects of both policies. For example, some criticize EPA for relying in part on Median Household Income (MHI) as a measure of community affordability. Further, cities are critical that integrated plans that have been approved so far have been incorporated only into new or amended consent decrees, not CWA permits.\nEPA\u2019s integrated planning process and water infrastructure affordability are issues of interest to legislators. For example, bills have been introduced in the 114th Congress that propose to codify an integrated approach to permitting and planning of water infrastructure projects (H.R. 1093/S. 2358, H.R. 1705, S. 2768, and S. 2848). House and Senate committees have held hearings on EPA\u2019s integrated planning policy and the agency\u2019s approach to determining a community\u2019s ability to afford water infrastructure projects.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44223", "sha1": "566bc9c393d5e1e23c7ce20492d521df40a2e607", "filename": "files/20160502_R44223_566bc9c393d5e1e23c7ce20492d521df40a2e607.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44223", "sha1": "a6c092bdc6337c2e6b637429033aa3322b0f0afe", "filename": "files/20160502_R44223_a6c092bdc6337c2e6b637429033aa3322b0f0afe.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2647, "name": "Water Quality Protection" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451308, "date": "2016-04-01", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T16:48:10.637357", "title": "EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure", "summary": "For several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working with states and cities to develop and implement new approaches that will achieve water quality goals cost-effectively and in a manner that addresses the most pressing water infrastructure problems first. Two such recent EPA initiatives are an integrated planning policy and a framework policy for assessing a community\u2019s financial capability to meet objectives and requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).\nPressed by municipalities about the challenges and costs that they face in addressing needs for wastewater and stormwater control projects, in 2012 EPA issued an integrated permitting and planning policy. The intention of the policy is to provide communities with flexibility to prioritize and sequence needed water infrastructure investments so that limited public dollars can be invested in ways that each municipality finds most valuable. \nWater utilities and municipalities have welcomed the opportunity for flexibility under the integrated planning policy. But they have sought clarification of a number of issues, including EPA and state roles in developing integrated plans. A major point of contention between EPA and local government stakeholders has been the agency\u2019s reliance on administrative orders or judicially approved consent decrees to codify integrated pollution reduction plans, rather than through modification of CWA permits. City and town officials say that they would prefer that EPA allow compliance flexibility through permits, rather than subjecting cities and towns to legally binding consent decrees with penalties and fines for noncompliance. The agency takes the position that both enforcement and permits are necessary, depending on individual circumstances.\nWhile integrated planning may be helpful in identifying communities\u2019 relative priorities, a long-standing concern for local governments is EPA\u2019s process for evaluating how much communities can afford for CWA-mandated and other water infrastructure improvements. EPA has worked with communities to refine how the agency determines when a project is affordable for individual communities, because affordability considerations can influence schedules established for a community to meet CWA requirements. In November 2014, EPA released a Financial Capability Assessment Framework that identifies a range of information related to a community\u2019s financial strength that may help provide a complete picture of cities\u2019 financial capability in relation to water infrastructure investments.\nState and local governments generally support EPA\u2019s efforts to encourage ways for communities to prioritize their CWA infrastructure investments and to consider a wide range of factors that affect affordability. Nevertheless, cities and states have continuing concerns with aspects of both policies. For example, some criticize EPA for relying in part on Median Household Income (MHI) as a measure of community affordability. Further, cities are critical that integrated plans that have been approved so far have been incorporated only into new or amended consent decrees, not CWA permits.\nEPA\u2019s integrated planning process and water infrastructure affordability are issues of interest to legislators. For example, bills have been introduced in the 114th Congress that propose to codify an integrated approach to permitting and planning of water infrastructure projects (H.R. 1093/S. 2358 and H.R. 1705). The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee on Water Resources has held several oversight hearings on EPA\u2019s integrated planning policy and the agency\u2019s approach to determining a community\u2019s ability to afford water infrastructure projects.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44223", "sha1": "0bb40171aa0c0c503890fdf8559cffd478558130", "filename": "files/20160401_R44223_0bb40171aa0c0c503890fdf8559cffd478558130.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44223", "sha1": "47f8f1ed535b2b54e62258fabdc29602723d104f", "filename": "files/20160401_R44223_47f8f1ed535b2b54e62258fabdc29602723d104f.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2647, "name": "Water Quality Protection" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795712/", "id": "R44223_2015Oct08", "date": "2015-10-08", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure", "summary": "This report examines recent initiatives by EPA, an integrated planning policy and a framework policy for assessing a community's financial capability to meet objectives and requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20151008_R44223_60e0e197c263a4545580c131e7d59ba7347f06cb.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20151008_R44223_60e0e197c263a4545580c131e7d59ba7347f06cb.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water resources", "name": "Water resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water law and legislation", "name": "Water law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Infrastructure", "name": "Infrastructure" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Environmental Policy" ] }