The Way research packet. Built 2026-10-28. Online version: https://michiinstitute.com/cases/clean-water-act-319.html

The Observatory · Case 35 · Environment · 1987 to 2026

Clean Water Act Section 319 Watershed Restoration (United States, 1987 to 2026)

1. Review status

Status

Not yet reviewed by a person. This page was researched and written with the help of AI tools. Every key claim is labeled by evidence status near the end, but no person has checked the sources yet. Treat it as a draft.

Verified by

No one has verified this page yet. No verifier is recorded.

Sources checked

2026-10-19

Review history

https://michiinstitute.com/members/reviews.html?case=clean-water-act-319

Packet built

2026-10-28

2. The article

In 1987 Congress told states to plan for farm, street and construction runoff and gave them grants for it, and EPA now reports more than 1,195 water bodies restored or improved since 2009, but independent reviews found slow progress against the size of the problem, uneven oversight and a heavy dependence on landowners who agree to take part.

The record

What the law does

• Section 319 of the Clean Water Act was added by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100-4, enacted February 4, 1987. It is codified at 33 U.S.C. 1329. (Statutes at Large, 101 Stat. 7, GovInfo; opened, but the body of the section was cut off in the text we read; the enactment date and the table of contents entry "Management of nonpoint sources of pollution" were confirmed)
• Each Governor, after public notice and comment, must submit an assessment report to the EPA Administrator. The report names waters that will not meet standards without added nonpoint source controls, the sources involved, and the process for choosing "best management practices." Each State must also submit a management program, again after public notice and comment, with an annual milestone schedule and an attorney general certification of legal authority. Reports and programs were due within 18 months of February 4, 1987. EPA has 180 days to approve or disapprove, and a program not disapproved in that time is deemed approved. (33 U.S.C. 1329, Cornell Legal Information Institute; opened)
• Implementation grants carry a federal share that "shall not exceed 60 percent" of program costs, and no one state may receive more than 15 percent of the appropriation. The current text authorizes $200 million per fiscal year for 2023 to 2027 for the implementation and groundwater grants together. At least 5 percent of the appropriation goes to EPA staff to run the section. (33 U.S.C. 1329; opened)
• Nonpoint source pollution means runoff from farms, construction sites and urban areas, as GAO describes it. The statute lists regulatory programs among the tools a State may use, so the program is not purely voluntary on paper. In practice, the work that EPA funds depends on landowners who choose to take part (see GAO findings below). (GAO-12-335; opened)

Timeline

The scale of the problem

• EPA's own 2011 evaluation estimates that about 33,820 impaired-water listings (76 percent) are primarily nonpoint source. This is an extrapolation from a random sample of 96 listings, of which 73 were primarily nonpoint. The chapter text elsewhere cites "more than 40,000" primarily nonpoint impaired water bodies. (EPA, National Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program, Nov. 2011; opened)
• The same report states that restorations have averaged about 60 water bodies per year, which is less than 1 percent of primarily nonpoint impaired waters, and that at that pace full restoration would take hundreds of years. The report gives two different figures for that span (see table below). (EPA 2011; opened)
• GAO notes that nonpoint pollution "remains the leading cause of impairment of the nation's waters." (GAO-12-335; opened)

What money bought

• From fiscal year 2004 to 2010, states awarded more than $1.2 billion in Section 319 funds to more than 5,800 projects. Agricultural pollution was the focus of 41 percent of projects and urban and stormwater runoff of 30 percent. About 45 percent of projects used direct pollution-reduction methods and about 55 percent used indirect methods such as planning, education and monitoring. (GAO-12-335; opened)
• EPA's fiscal 2010 breakdown of base funds: 41.5 percent to state nonpoint program staff, 16.7 percent to education and outreach, 9.8 percent to water quality project implementation, 9.8 percent to indirect and administrative costs, 7.3 percent to monitoring and assessment, 2.2 percent to watershed plan development. Three states were left out of the breakdown and EPA calls it a single-year snapshot. (EPA 2011; opened)
• The statute sets a 40 percent non-federal share. State environmental officials told Congress through their association that match requirements can cause hardship and asked for a streamlined, faster grant process. (Environmental Council of the States resolution, 2023; opened. This is an advocacy document.)

How a "success story" is defined

• A water body must be identified by the state as primarily nonpoint impaired, must show documented water quality improvement, and must have received Section 319 funds or other funding dedicated to nonpoint impairments. The state writes the story, the EPA region reviews it, EPA headquarters reviews it, and then the state and region both approve it for posting. (EPA, Success Story Handbook, 2023; opened)
• A water body can count as "partially or fully restored" before it is removed from the impaired list, if the story shows actual restoration and the state has put it in a draft report to be delisted in the next cycle. Delistings due to insufficient data, a mistake in the original listing, or a changed standard are not eligible. (EPA handbook; opened)
• Only partially or fully restored water bodies featured in stories count toward EPA's national restoration measure. (EPA archived success story page; opened)
• This means the count is a count of stories that states chose to write and EPA accepted. It is not a census of all funded projects.

Disputed or differing numbers

| Item | Figure A | Figure B | Notes | |---|---|---| | Water bodies restored, as of a date | 14 as of Nov. 2005 (OMB PART, which says the count is likely understated because restorations must be documented) | 354 as of Sept. 6, 2011 (EPA evaluation body text); 355 in its executive summary; 356 as of Dec. 2011 (GAO); "over 1,195" since 2009 (EPA 2024 recap) | Counting rules and start years differ. The first figure was against a 2008 target of 250. | | Start of success story program | 2005 (ECOS resolution) | Counts "since 2009" (EPA 2024 recap); "since 2000" (GAO page) | Not reconciled | | Years to restore all primarily nonpoint waters at the 2011 pace | "about 700 years" (EPA 2011 body) | "more than 500 years" (EPA 2011 introduction) | Same report, two figures | | Impaired water bodies primarily nonpoint | 33,820 listings, 76 percent (EPA 2011, sample extrapolation) | "more than 40,000" (EPA 2011, chapter 1) | Same report | | Cost per restored water body | $35.7 million actual (PART, 2004 assessment) | 2008 target $4.7 million (PART) | Early data; EPA said it expected the figure to improve | | Projects that met all original objectives | About 72 percent (GAO survey, project managers) | About 28 percent did not (GAO) | One survey, two sides of the same number; self-reported by project managers |

What this case shows

1. The plan and the list are public by design. The statute requires public notice and comment on each state's assessment and management program, and EPA posts success stories with the original listing data and monitoring data location. An ordinary person can find which water body is listed, what was done, and what changed. The standard for a posted story asks for graphs, sample locations and a quality assurance check. (33 U.S.C. 1329; EPA handbook)
2. But the unit that counts is the story, not the dollar. A state can write up the projects that worked. EPA's own handbook says only featured stories count toward the national measure. GAO found that 28 percent of surveyed projects did not meet all objectives and that EPA regions reviewed state choices to very different depths. A reader of the success page alone cannot see the projects that did not work. The thesis question, what ordinary people could know, is answered in part and incompletely. (EPA handbook; GAO-12-335)
3. The work rests on landowner consent. GAO found that half of reported challenges were outside staff control, such as weather, and that many others could have been addressed before funding, most often by securing landowner participation first. Examples GAO cites: in West Virginia only one homeowner signed up for a septic repair subsidy, and on the Illinois River 11 of 2,500 planned urban stormwater practices were installed. People who own the land decide whether the public money reaches the creek. (GAO-12-335, as summarized by Agri-Pulse; GAO product page opened; the examples come from the secondary summary)
4. Scale mismatch. EPA's own evaluation says current progress is under 1 percent of the nonpoint-impaired waters, and the pace implies centuries. The program's design, a grant to the state with a 40 percent state or local share, does not match the size of the problem. Who pays for the rest is not settled by the record. (EPA 2011)
5. Measures shape what is learned. GAO found that EPA's two required measures, pollutant load reductions and removals from impaired lists, may not capture the health of a water body, and that counts of living organisms might do better. EPA responded with new guidance in 2013 and revised measures in 2020. The public can follow the correction, but only if it reads GAO's follow-up. (GAO product page; opened)
6. Who was included. The 2011 evaluation did not review territories or tribal programs. Advocacy groups say 2024 guidelines added funding for tribal governments, which we could not confirm in the guideline text. States with less staff or less match capacity had a harder time with a match-based grant. (EPA 2011; Soil and Water Conservation Society)

The strongest objections, and our answers

1. Objection: Section 319 works, and the success stories show it. Hundreds of water bodies have been improved, and some projects leveraged much more money than they cost. EPA's evaluation gives Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, where about $500,000 in Section 319 funds supported two staff and drew about $839,000 in cost-share and $130,000 in USDA funds. Mitigation: We include this. We also include that success stories are selected by states and accepted by EPA, that the stories are not a sample of all funded projects, and that GAO found 28 percent of surveyed projects fell short of their goals. We do not claim the successes are false; we claim they are not representative by construction.
2. Objection: Judging the program by restored water bodies is the wrong yardstick. Much of the money pays for planning, education, monitoring and state staff (about 55 percent of projects were indirect in GAO's count). Prevention and capacity are part of the aim. Mitigation: Agreed. The EPA 2011 breakdown shows the largest share of base funds going to state program staff. We report the shares and let readers weigh them. Measures that count only restorations understate prevention, and measures that count only spending overstate it.
3. Objection: The 2004 cost-per-restoration figure ($35.7 million) is an old artifact. It was early and EPA said it would improve. Mitigation: We label it as a 2004 assessment of an early period and give no current cost per restoration. We could not find a current figure.
4. Objection: Nonpoint pollution is hard to regulate and a voluntary approach is reasonable. Gabriel Calvo argued in 1999 that voluntary public-private projects can make progress where direct regulation is hard, while saying such efforts need enforcement behind them and noting that his own examples lacked water quality data. Mitigation: We give his argument. We note that the statute lists regulation among available tools, so "voluntary" describes how the money is mostly used, not a limit in the law.
5. Objection: GAO's findings were fixed. GAO reports its recommendations were closed as implemented after EPA's 2013 guidelines, 2018 checklist and 2020 measures. Mitigation: We say so. The fix does not tell us whether outcomes improved after 2020.
6. Objection: A water body removed from a list may not be cleaner. Mitigation: EPA excludes delistings caused by insufficient data, a listing mistake or a changed standard from success stories, and requires data. We rely on that rule, but we did not audit individual stories.

Open questions: what would change our minds

• No source we opened gives a count of all Section 319 funded projects and what share produced a restoration. Without that count, the success-story total cannot be compared to a denominator. Unverified.
• The first-hand statute text of Section 316 of Public Law 100-4 was cut off in the file we read. The codified text came from Cornell. The claim in the 2004 PART that the law does not allow Section 319 funds to pay for best management practices beyond demonstration projects comes only from that archived assessment and was not checked against the statute. Unverified.
• We read the EPA national evaluation, the GAO report page, the EPA handbook and others through a fetch tool that returns summaries. GAO-12-335 was read to character 100,000 of about 150,000. Page-level quotes and figures should be rechecked against the original PDFs before print.
• The 2011 EPA evaluation gives 354 and 355 and two time spans (500 and 700 years). We did not resolve which is intended.
• The 2024 recap figure "over 1,195" since 2009 comes from one PDF; the year-by-year counts were not readable.
• Whether the post-2020 measures produced better outcomes: not checked. No GAO or EPA follow-up evaluation after 2020 was opened.
• The enacted fiscal year 2025 and 2026 appropriation is unverified; only an advocacy request ($175.5 million) was seen.
• The claim that 2024 guidelines added funding for tribal governments comes from an advocacy page and was not confirmed in the guidelines.
• The Duke student blog, Iowa Environmental Council and other critiques of the agricultural exemption surfaced in search but were not opened.
• What would change our minds: a representative audit of funded projects showing the success stories are typical, or a post-2020 evaluation showing water quality gains at a scale that closes the gap EPA described in 2011.

Sources

Found an error or a better source? We keep every correction on the record with its date and reason. Nothing here is quietly rewritten.

3. Sources and their details

One entry per source in the page's Sources table. "Checked" is the date the page says its sources were checked. A Wayback link and SHA-256 appear only where a snapshot has been recorded.

4. Every link used in the article

1. Statutes at Large, 101 Stat. 7, GovInfo
   https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg7.pdf
2. 33 U.S.C. 1329, Cornell Legal Information Institute
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1329
3. GAO-12-335
   https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-335
4. Soil and Water Conservation Society
   https://www.swcs.org/resources/news/soil-and-water-conservation-society-urges-congress-to-boost-funding-for-critical-water-quality-progr
5. EPA, National Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program, Nov. 2011
   https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2015-10/documents/319evaluation.pdf
6. Environmental Council of the States resolution, 2023
   https://www.ecos.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/10-5-Nonpoint-Source-v2023.pdf
7. EPA, Success Story Handbook, 2023
   https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-11/success-story-handbook-508.pdf
8. EPA archived success story page
   https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/nps/nonpoint-source-success-stories-about_.html
9. OMB PART
   https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/OMB/expectmore/detail/10000224.2004.html
10. EPA 2024 recap
    https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-09/pages-from-2024-success-story-recap_072525_508-9-25.pdf
11. Agri-Pulse
    https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/2021-gao-key-epa-water-quality-program-needs-greater-oversight
12. Gabriel Calvo
    https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/bibarticles/calvo_voluntary.pdf
13. https://www.epa.gov/nps/success-stories-about-restoring-and-protecting-water-bodies-impaired-by-nonpoint-source-pollutio
    https://www.epa.gov/nps/success-stories-about-restoring-and-protecting-water-bodies-impaired-by-nonpoint-source-pollution

5. Revision history

First published (earliest change on record): 2026-10-22.

Corrections on the page

This page does not carry a correction table. Its change log is below.

Change log for the page

• 2026-10-27: Cases: add inline source links to 51 case pages (links only; a-tag-stripped pages identical to main)
• 2026-10-27: Point links that reached the old preview home at the current site
• 2026-10-25: TOC 1025 overlay
• 2026-10-25: Cases banner 1025c (73 pages) and members update 33
• 2026-10-22: Initial mirror of michiinstitute.com (partial crawl) plus deploy files

6. How to cite

The Way (Michi Institute). "Clean Water Act Section 319 Watershed Restoration (United States, 1987 to 2026)." Case 35, The Observatory. Sources checked 2026-10-19. Packet built 2026-10-28. https://michiinstitute.com/cases/clean-water-act-319.html

This is preliminary research. Before relying on a claim, cite and check the primary source it points to. To save as a PDF: use your browser's Print and choose Save as PDF.

Not left. Not right. We are The Way. A nonpartisan research project, not a political party.