You limited your search to:

 Collection: Congressional Research Service Reports
Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2364/
Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2363/
Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2362/
Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2361/
Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2360/
Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2359/
Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1528/
Air Quality: EPA's Proposed Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 216 Petitions - A Hazy Situation?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently engaged in a series of regulatory actions to address the transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States. This report reviews this situation with respect to an EPA-proposed Ozone Transport Rule and other activities. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs601/
Air Quality: EPA's Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 216 Petitions - A Hazy Situation?
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states with new tool to address the problem of interstate transport of air pollutants. This report discusses the actions undertaken as a direct result of this act, additional pollution reduction enforcement measures pursued by the EPA, and actions undertaken by states to reduce offending emissions not in compliance with these measures. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs935/
Highway Fund Sanctions for Clean Air Act Violations
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs418/
Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of Pollutants
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For those 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 recently, when states and EPA were prodded by numerous lawsuits. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4077/
Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of Pollutants
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For those 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 recently, when states and EPA were prodded by numerous lawsuits. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2340/
Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of Pollutants
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For those 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 recently, when states and EPA were prodded by numerous lawsuits. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1524/
Clean Water Act and TMDLs
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For those waters, states must establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants to ensure that water quality standards can be attained. Implementation of this provision has been dormant until recently, when states and EPA were prodded by numerous lawsuits. The TMDL issue has become controversial, in part because of requirements and costs now facing states to implement a 25-year-old provision of the law. Congressional activity to reauthorize the Act, a possibility in the 2nd Session of the 105th Congress, could include TMDL issues, but the direction for any such action is unclear at this time. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs417/
Fast-Track Trade Authority Proposals: Which Environmental Issues are Included in the Principal Negotiating Objectives?
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs412/
Fast-Track Trade Authority: Which Environmental Issues are "Directly Related to Trade"?
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs409/
Environmental Protection Agency: An Analysis of Key FY1999 Budget Issues
On February 2, 1998, the President requested $7.8 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in FY1999. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2168 (S.Rept. 105-216) on June 12; the full Senate passed the bill on July 17. The House Committee reported H.R. 4194 (H.Rept. 105-610) on July 8, 1998; the full House passed it on July 29; and the Senate passed it on July 30 after incorporating S. 2168's provisions. During the week of October 6, the House and Senate approved the conference report, H.Rept. 105-769, which includes $7.5 billion, thus clearing the bill for the President's signature of October 21 (P.L. 105-276). The Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277) added $30 million more in FY1999 funds. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs556/
Environmental Protection Agency: FY1998 Budget
EPA appropriations are included in the annual VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill. Two major issues were whether Superfund cleanups should be accelerated in the absence of statutory reforms and whether the requested state assistance funds are adequate. Because the House and Senate were in agreement on not granting the requested 50% increase in Superfund and in passing increased state funds, the chief conference issue was expected to focus on the roughly $225 million difference between the House and Senate versions. However, a veto threat over Superfund program funding made this a key conference issue. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs396/
Environmental Protection Agency: FY1998 Budget
EPA appropriations are included in the annual VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill. Two major issues were whether Superfund cleanups should be accelerated in the absence of statutory reforms and whether the requested state assistance funds are adequate. Because the House and Senate were in agreement on not granting the requested 50% increase in Superfund and in passing increased state funds, the chief conference issue focused on the roughly $225 million difference between the House and Senate versions. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs554/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2004 Budget
For FY2004, the President’s budget requested $7.6 billion in budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $448 million (or 6%) less than the $8.1 billion current funding level. The House approved $8.0 billion in H.R. 2861 (H.Rept. 108-235) on July 25. Senate action is anticipated in September. The request consisted of $3.1 billion for EPA operating expenses, $3.1 billion for assisting state and local governments, and $1.4 billion for cleaning up Superfund toxic waste sites. Wastewater infrastructure needs and the future of Superfund are prominent topics. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3811/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2004 Budget
For FY2004, the President’s budget requested $7.6 billion in budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $448 million (or 6%) less than the $8.1 billion current funding level. The House approved $8.0 billion in H.R. 2861 (H.Rept. 108-235) on July 25. Senate action is anticipated in September. The request consisted of $3.1 billion for EPA operating expenses, $3.1 billion for assisting state and local governments, and $1.4 billion for cleaning up Superfund toxic waste sites. Wastewater infrastructure needs and the future of Superfund are prominent topics. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3810/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2004 Budget
For FY2004, the President’s budget requested $7.6 billion in budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $448 million (or 6%) less than the $8.1 billion current funding level. The House approved $8.0 billion in H.R. 2861 (H.Rept. 108-235) on July 25. Senate action is anticipated in September. The request consisted of $3.1 billion for EPA operating expenses, $3.1 billion for assisting state and local governments, and $1.4 billion for cleaning up Superfund toxic waste sites. Wastewater infrastructure needs and the future of Superfund are prominent topics. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3809/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
In the 107th Congress, S. 2797 (S.Rept. 107-222) would have provided $8.30 billion for EPA in FY2003. H.R. 5605 (H.Rept. 107- 740) would have provide $8.20 billion. Both bills would restore much of the water infrastructure funding but there was no final action by the end of Congress. Continuing resolutions funded at the same level as in FY2002. In the 108th Congress, P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2) provides EPA with $8.08 billion for FY2003. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3801/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
In the 107th Congress, S. 2797 (S.Rept. 107-222) would have provided $8.30 billion for EPA in FY2003. H.R. 5605 (H.Rept. 107- 740) would have provide $8.20 billion. Both bills would restore much of the water infrastructure funding but there was no final action by the end of Congress. Continuing resolutions funded at the same level as in FY2002. In the 108th Congress, P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2) provides EPA with $8.08 billion for FY2003. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3800/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3799/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3798/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2172/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2171/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2170/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2169/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2003 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2168/
The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2002 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2163/
Environmental Protection Agency: FY2001 Budget Issues
The request for state and local wastewater and drinking water capital needs was a key issue. The request of $2.91 billion for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which fund these needs, was about one-half billion less than in FY2000. The House passed $3.18 billion, the Senate $3.32 billion, and the conferees $3.62 billion. The request included $800 million for Clean Water State Revolving Funds, $550 million less than in FY2000. The House passed $1.20 billion, the Senate $1.35 billion and the conferees $1.35 billion. Conferees approved the $825 million requested for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Congress denied the Administration's request for a new Clean Air Partnership program. EPA requested $100 million for Mexican border water projects and $15 million for State of Alaska projects. Conferees approved $75 million and $35 million respectively. For state and tribal administrative grants, the conferees approved roughly the requested amount of $1.0 billion. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1075/
Environmental Protection Agency: FY2000 Budget Issues
State and local wastewater and drinking water capital needs were the most prominent budgetary issues. Senate and House authorizing and appropriating chairmen expressed concern over the requested 17% decrease in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account from $3.41 billion in FY1999 to $2.84 billion in FY2000. The conference agreement on H.R. 2684 provides a total of $3.47 billion. For clean water state revolving funds, the conference committee approved the Senate's level of $1.35 billion, about $175 million more than the House approved and roughly $550 million more than requested. The conference agreement included $332 million for special project grants, about $73 million more than the House's proposal, roughly $232 million more than the Senate approved, and about $304 million more than requested. For drinking water state revolving funds, the conference committee approved $820 million, $45 million more than the House's amount and $5 million less than the Senate approved and the President requested. The conference committee also approved the Administration's request of $885 million for state and tribal administrative grants, which is roughly the same as the amount enacted for FY1999. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs867/
Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3776/
Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2157/
Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1409/
The Role of Designation of Critical Habitat under the Endangered Species Act
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs853/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for energy development. The report discusses arguments for and against such development and related pieces of legislation. It does not analyze specific proposals to develop or protect the Refuge. Rather, it provides basic material for analyzing possibilities and implications of the major issues that have been the focus of the legislative debate over its fate. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3775/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5736/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5735/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3770/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3769/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3768/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3767/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3766/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3765/
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress
This report discusses the ongoing debate about whether or not to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Current law forbids energy leasing in the Refuge. This report addresses several legislative options on the issue, as well as policymakers' arguments for and against development, especially in the wake of increasing terrorism since 2000-2001. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3764/
Climate Change Legislation in the 108th Congress
Climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been an issue in the 108th Congress, as they have been over the past decade. Bills directly addressing climate change issues range from those focused primarily on climate change research (H.R. 1578 and S. 1164) to comprehensive emissions cap and trading programs for all six greenhouse gases (S. 139 and H.R. 4067). This report briefly discusses basic concepts on which these bills are based, and compares major provisions of the bills in each of the following categories: climate change research, GHG reporting and registries, and cap and trade programs. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6136/
Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5733/