Forty years ago today, the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution went into effect. The Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), became law after the bill was vetoed by President Nixon.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) introduced legislation that would create a trust fund to be used to assess user fees on water users and products that affect the water stream in attempts to generate around $9 billion per year to pay for water infrastructure projects. To generate $9 billion annually, the bill proposes fees at the manufacturer level on bottled beverages, pharmaceuticals, and flushable products (personal hygiene, toiletries, cooking oils, etc.). None of these groups are supportive of the legislation and the bottlers have come out strongly opposed to paying into the fund.

The House Appropriations Committee approved the FY 2013 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, which includes funding for the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Forest Service, and various independent and related agencies. In total, the bill cuts of $1.2 billion below last year’s level, with $870 million (or 73 percent) coming in the form of cuts to the State Revolving Funds (SRF) for clean water and drinking water infrastructure.

This week, the House Interior/Environment Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its FY 2013 funding legislation for the Department of the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which also contains the funding for EPA’s State Revolving Funds (SRF) for clean water and drinking water infrastructure.

AGC joined other industry groups this week in sending a letter to members of the House Appropriations Committee making sure State Revolving Fund (SRF) projects are not hampered by harmful Buy American provisions. The House Interior/Environment Appropriations Subcommittee was reportedly working on language that would have applied requirements that the iron, steel, and manufactured goods on SRF projects are domestically sourced.

This week, the House Interior/Environment Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its FY 2013 funding legislation for the Department of the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which also contains the funding for EPA’s State Revolving Funds (SRF) for clean water and drinking water infrastructure.

AGC recently submitted comments on a proposed rule issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) that addressed federal enforcement of state damage prevention laws. This proposed rule establishes the criteria for determining the adequacy of state enforcement of pipeline damage prevention laws and proposes a process for federal enforcement under the authority of the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Safety, and Enforcement (PIPES) Act of 2006.

AGC Submitted comments on a proposed rule issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) that addressed federal enforcement of state damage prevention laws. This proposed rule establishes the criteria for determining the adequacy of state enforcement of pipeline damage prevention laws and proposes a process for federal enforcement under the authority of the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Safety, and Enforcement (PIPES) Act of 2006.

The long-awaited proposed rule from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on state damage prevention programs was published on Monday, April 2. The 2006 Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act (PIPES Act) requires PHMSA to enforce damage prevention laws where a state damage prevention program is deemed inadequate to do so. This proposed rule is designed to lay out the criteria PHMSA will use to judge whether a state damage prevention program is adequate and what actions the federal government will take once a state has been deemed inadequate.The rule lays out six criteria to determine the adequacy of a state’s damage prevention program, which are:Does the state have the authority to enforce its state excavation damage prevention law through civil penalties?Has the state designated a state agency or other body as the authority responsible for enforcement of the state excavation damage prevention law?Is the state assessing civil penalties for violations at levels sufficient to ensure compliance and is the state making publicly available information that demonstrates the effectiveness of the state’s enforcement program?Does the enforcement authority (if one exists) have a reliable mechanism (e.g., mandatory reporting, complaint-driven reporting, etc.) for learning about excavation damage to underground facilities?Does the state employ excavation damage investigation practices that are adequate to determine the at-fault party when excavation damage to underground facilities occurs?At a minimum, does the state’s excavation damage prevention law require the following?Excavators may not engage in excavation activity without first using an available one-call notification system to establish the location of underground facilities in the excavation area.Excavators may not engage in excavation activity in disregard of the marked location of a pipeline facility as established by a pipeline operator.An excavator who causes damage to a pipeline facility:Must report the damage to the owner or operator of the facility at the earliest practical moment following discovery of the damage; and,If the damage results in the escape of any flammable, toxic, or corrosive gas or liquid that may endanger life or cause serious bodily harm or damage to property, must  promptly report to other appropriate authorities by calling the 911 emergency telephone number or another emergency telephone number.Does the state limit exemptions for excavators from its excavation damage prevention law? A state must provide to PHMSA a written justification for any exemptions for excavators from state damage prevention requirements. PHMSA will make the written justifications available to the public.The rule also outlines the standards that PHMSA would consider enforceable in states determined to have inadequate damage prevention laws. These federal requirements are:A person who engages in demolition, excavation, tunneling, or construction—may not engage in a demolition, excavation, tunneling, or construction activity in a state that has adopted a one-call notification system without first using that system to establish the location of underground facilities in the demolition, excavation, tunneling, or construction area;may not engage in such demolition, excavation, tunneling, or construction activity in disregard of location information or markings established by a pipeline facility operator; andwho causes damage to a pipeline facility that may endanger life or cause serious bodily harm or damage to property—may not fail to promptly report the damage to the owner or operator of the facility; andif the damage results in the escape of any flammable, toxic, or corrosive gas or liquid, may not fail to promptly report to other appropriate authorities by calling the 911 emergency telephone number.One of the big requests from the excavation community during our comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was that the term ‘excavator’ applies to all parties doing excavation, including utilities and the contractors working for them. AGC continues to examine the rule for other areas of importance to its members. Any contractor that engages in excavation activity should read the rule. We would welcome any thoughts as AGC formulates its response to this rule, which is due June 1.You can read the proposed rule here.For more information, please contact Scott Berry at (703) 837-5321 or berrys@agc.org.

Senators Barrasso (R-Wy.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), Heller (R-Nev.) and Sessions (R-Ala.), along with 26 of their colleagues, introduced legislation to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) from implementing its guidance on Clean Water Act jurisdiction.