Prompted by the  Congress, EPA has responded with a variety of programs, including the  NPDES Storm Water Program, which requires more than 1,000 local  governments to implement storm water management programs. Those  municipalities that are currently involved in Phase I of the program have  been attempting to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff for several  years. It is time to begin evaluating these efforts. In addition,  the agency has  not attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of this program in reducing  storm water pollution or to determine its cost. The agency attributes this  problem to inconsistent data reporting from permitted municipalities,  insufficient staff resources, and other competing priorities within the  Office of Wastewater Management. Although Phase I municipalities report  monitoring and cost data to EPA or state regulatory agencies annually,  these agencies have not reviewed this information to determine whether it  can be of use in determining the program’s overall effectiveness or cost. Our analysis shows that the reported cost information will be difficult to  analyze unless EPA and its state partners set guidelines designed to elicit  more standardized reporting. Better data on costs and program  effectiveness are needed—especially in light of the Phase II program that  will involve thousands more municipalities in 2003. EPA’s planned research  grant to the University of Alabama and its pilot project in the agency’s  Region IV to analyze data from annual reports and develop baseline  indicators is a step in the right direction and could point the way for a more  comprehensive approach. Recommendation

To determine the extent to which activities undertaken through the NPDES  Storm Water Program are reducing pollutants in urban runoff and  improving water quality, and the costs of this program to local  governments, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the  Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water to   establish measurable goals for the program;  establish guidelines for obtaining consistent and reliable data from local  governments with Phase I permits, including data on the effects of the  program and the costs to these governments;   review the data submitted by these permittees to determine whether  program goals are being met and to identify the costs of the program;  and  assess whether the agency has allocated sufficient resources to oversee  and monitor the program.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers the contaminants in storm water runoff as a significant threat to water quality across the nation. Prompted by Congress, EPA has responded with various initiatives, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Program, which requires more than 1,000 local governments to undertake storm water management programs. Those municipalities in Phase I of the program have been trying to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff for several years, and it is time to begin evaluating their efforts. EPA however, has not established measurable goals for this program, nor has it attempted to evaluate the program's effectiveness in reducing storm water pollution or to determine its cost. EPA attributes its inaction to inconsistent data reporting from municipalities, insufficient staff resources, and other competing priorities within the Office of Wastewater Management. Although municipalities report monitoring and cost data to EPA or state regulatory agencies annually, these agencies have not reviewed this information to determine whether it can be useful in determining the program's overall effectiveness or cost.

What GAO Found

GAO found that the reported cost information will be difficult to analyze unless EPA and its state partners set guidelines to elicit more standardized reporting. Better data on costs and program effectiveness are needed--especially in light of the Phase II program that will involve thousands more municipalities in 2003. EPA's planned research grant to the University of Alabama and its pilot project to analyze data from annual reports and develop baseline indicators is a step in the right direction and could point the way for a more comprehensive approach.