Recommendation: The U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC should work with the Mexican Commissioner to formalize a binational rapid response team to address sewage infrastructure failures along the U.S.-Mexico border, including the Nogales and South Bay wastewater treatment plants. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, USIBWC stated that two teams have been established with members, one in the Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora region and one in the San Diego and Tijuana region. IBWC continues to take actions to formalize the binational rapid response teams. We will review the final documents for each team when they are completed and available.

Recommendation: The U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC should direct USIBWC staff to conduct long-term capital planning for the Santa Cruz River Basin and Tijuana River Valley watersheds, following the principles in OMB Circular A-11. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, the U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC stated that it had conducted long-term capital planning for the facilities for which it is responsible. They noted the 5-year plan that USIBWC had developed for the South Bay plant and the 10-year plan that it had developed for the Nogales plant. We noted these plans in our original report and stated that they needed to be broadened to identify needs in the Santa Cruz River Basin and Tijuana River Valley watersheds. The agency only partially concurred with our recommendation in the report and noted that to the extent our report envisions USIBWC undertaking long-term capital planning for (1) nonfederal infrastructure; (2) infrastructure that does not yet exist; and/or (3) infrastructure that the USIBWC is not yet authorized to construct or maintain, it does not concur. The agency is a key player in managing water quality on the border and has the infrastructure and organization that will be part of the solution. Without the information that USIBWC would generate by comprehensively assessing its long-term needs, such as through long-term capital planning efforts, Congress cannot authorize specific work that needs to be done. We recommended that the agency conduct long-term planning, including for infrastructure that does not exist and for infrastructure that is not yet authorized specifically to address this problem. We continue to believe that USIBWC should recognize its role along the border and start planning for it, including by undertaking long-term capital planning for existing and potential future infrastructure and identifying alternatives to address the long-standing water quality problems.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the EPA should develop a program management plan that includes a schedule of the actions EPA will take and the resources and funding it needs to establish and implement the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program, including formation of the associated Columbia River Basin Restoration Working Group, and submit this plan to the appropriate congressional authorizing committees as part of the fiscal year 2020 budget process. (Recommendation 1).

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: EPA reconvened the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group. As of May 2019, EPA officials told us they are working on the development of a program management plan to identify the actions and timeline for implementing the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program. In July 2019, EPA released a status update entitled, "2019 Status Update: Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction" that provides a summary of the working group's major accomplishments since 2010, as well as priority efforts for future work. In September 2019, EPA announced the availability of $900,000 in grants to reduce toxics throughout the Columbia River Basin for the Clean Water Act Section 123 Columbia River Basin Restoration Grant Program for fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2020. As of October 2020, we have not received additional information from EPA regarding this recommendation. We will update the recommendation's status when we do.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should develop and provide guidance on the types of projects and activities that agencies involved in the protection and restoration of the Columbia River Basin should include in their reports, as well as the processes they should follow in compiling the related budget and spending information. (Recommendation 2).

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, OMB staff did not provide an update. When we receive an update, we will provide information on actions taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should notify all participating entities to ensure they are aware of the Interim Federal Action Plan and their role in it. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: The 2020 OMB Crosscut Budget states that the implementation of the Delta Plan has been conducted by the Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee, which was created in 2013, and includes participation and leadership from federal agencies at the regional and DC headquarters levels. It also states that the Council is primarily responsible for coordinating federal activities in the Delta. This language clarifies the role of federal agencies in relation to the Council and the Delta Plan, as we recommended. However, in December 2019, Bureau of Reclamation officials stated that they were not aware of any communication of federal agencies' role. We will continue to monitor this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chair of CEQ should notify all participating entities to ensure they are aware of the Interim Federal Action Plan and their role in it. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Council on Environmental Quality
Status: Open

Comments: The 2020 OMB Crosscut Budget states that the implementation of the Delta Plan has been conducted by the Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee, which was created in 2013, and includes participation and leadership from federal agencies at the regional and DC headquarters levels. It also states that the Council is primarily responsible for coordinating federal activities in the Delta. This language clarifies the role of federal agencies in relation to the Council and the Delta Plan, as we recommended. However as of January 2020, CEQ officials had not provided an update on this recommendation, although Bureau of Reclamation officials stated that they were not aware of any communication of federal agencies' role. We will continue to monitor this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should coordinate with appropriate state entities to obtain and report the information available to meet the requirements under section 105 of the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act (CALFED Act). (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, Interior reported that the California Delta Stewardship Council (a state agency) had met twice and asked Reclamation to develop a template on financial detail for the Science Tracker, the Council's web-based tracking system. The Council compiles and reports on funding information and progress for federal and state agencies. The template will be used by a subgroup of agencies to collect their 2019 expenditures and this will be put into the Science Tracker in preparation for a February 15, 2020 reporting date. The subgroup is working on establishing common accounting and reporting protocols, supporting web-based tracking, and coordinating a review of science in the Delta.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should coordinate with appropriate state entities to obtain and report the information available to meet the requirements under section 106 of the CALFED Act. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, OMB staff did not provide an update. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should direct staff to update OMB's written guidance for federal and state agencies on submitting data for the budget crosscut reports OMB is required to submit under section 106 of the CALFED Act. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, OMB staff had not provided an update on this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The EPA Region 10 Administrator should work with the management conference on future updates to the CCMP to help prioritize among the indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure that such targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where possible. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: EPA agreed with this recommendation, and in June 2019 EPA provided GAO with a written update on the status of actions being taken in response to the recommendation. EPA stated that the leader of the management conference, the Puget Sound Partnership, has initiated an effort to review and revise the Puget Sound recovery vital signs, including updating their associated indicators and targets. EPA estimated that this effort will be completed in fiscal year 2021 for use in the 2022 comprehensive conservation and management plan (CCMP) update. In December 2019, EPA stated that work is ongoing. We will continue to monitor the status of this effort and will assess the extent to which it addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director, working with the Study, should ensure that as the Study finalizes its reporting format, it fully incorporates leading practices of performance reporting. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, the Long Island Sound Study (Study) stated that it has incorporated two leading practices into the reporting format for its progress reports. In addition, the Study website shows the progress toward ecosystem targets compared to the recovery plan, and for a preceding period of time when data are available. According to the Study, EPA hired a contractor to develop a report addressing our recommendations. The Study is using the contractor report to finalize its reporting format and plans to develop an online reporting and tracking system that fully incorporates leading practices of performance reporting. We will review the format of the online tracking system when it becomes available and provide updated information as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Director, working with the Study, should develop cost estimates that include analyses of uncertainties for each of the targets in the 2015 plan. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, the Study reported that it had hired a contractor to develop a report including the range of costs, including uncertainty bounds, needed to attain each of the targets in the 2015 plan. The contractor has completed its study. Cost estimates for each ecosystem target were developed by adding up the existing cost ranges for each of the implementation actions in the 2015 plan. The report is posted and accessible to the public on the Long Island Sound Study website (https://longislandsoundstudy.net/2019/11/addressing-gaos-recommendations-liss-performance-reporting-and-cost-estimating/). The report contains recommendations for the Study to continue estimating costs in future reports. We are following up with EPA to determine whether the Study will do this.

Recommendation: The Director, working with the Study, should estimate the range of potential costs for all implementation actions and include the estimates in future supplements to the 2015 plan. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, the Study said that as part of the Plan 2020-2024 implementation action update, it will include a range of costs for implementation actions. We will review the supplemental documents when they are available and provide updated information as appropriate.

Recommendation: To help achieve EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to direct EQIP program managers to coordinate with the leaders of USDA's CEAP to help ensure that CEAP studies consider the practical limitations and trade-offs faced by program managers and to provide program managers with better information to target EQIP funds where they will optimize environmental benefits.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the agency has not taken action. When we obtain information from the agency, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help achieve EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to revise guidance on state offices' EQIP allocation processes, stipulating that data on environmental concerns, where available, should be a primary factor influencing allocations within states.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the agency has not taken action. When we obtain information from the agency, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help achieve EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to establish a review process at the regional level for review and concurrence of EQIP payment rates above a threshold (e.g., rates greater than 50 percent, with justification).

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the agency has not taken action. When we obtain information from the agency, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help achieve EQIP's purpose of optimizing environmental benefits, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to modify guidance and ranking tools so that they more accurately value an EQIP application's anticipated environmental benefits relative to estimated costs.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the agency has not taken action. When we obtain information from the agency, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To take advantage of opportunities to collect UCMR data on additional unregulated contaminants, Congress should consider amending SDWA to give EPA the flexibility to select more than 30 contaminants for monitoring under the UCMR program if high-priority contaminants, such as those on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) or contaminants of emerging concern, can be included at minimal cost, with minimal additional burden on public water systems, and while using analytical methods that EPA is already employing.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not taken action to address this matter; we will continue to monitor actions and provide updated information when it becomes available.

Recommendation: To optimize the ability of the UCMR data to support regulatory determinations, Congress should consider adjusting the statutory time frames for the UCMR and regulatory determinations cycles so that EPA can use the UCMR data to support regulatory determinations in the same cycle.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not taken action to address this matter; we will continue to monitor actions and provide updated information when it becomes available.

Recommendation: To improve EPA's ability to oversee the states' implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and provide Congress and the public with more complete and accurate information on compliance, the Administrator of EPA should resume data verification audits to routinely evaluate the quality of selected drinking water data on health-based and monitoring violations that the states provide to EPA. These audits should also evaluate the quality of data on the enforcement actions that states and other primacy agencies have taken to correct violations.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. EPA, as of September 2019, had not resumed data verification audits to routinely evaluate the quality of the data states provide to the agency. The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime and the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP) will replace the data verification audits in the future. EPA has made SDWIS Prime available through incremental interim releases to state drinking water agencies for exploring and testing but does not expect to fully release it until mid-2020. However, as of August 2019, SDWIS Prime was unavailable while EPA awaited progress on the SDWIS Modernization Project plan. According to EPA, the CMDP will enable utilities and laboratories to report data electronically to primacy agencies with fewer errors and in a more efficient manner; but it is not clear when it will be fully operational. According to data provided by EPA in September 2019, 10 states were using CMDP to varying degrees. EPA information identified another 6 states that plan to transition to CMDP between September and December 2019, 2 states that plan to transition in 2020, and 12 others that may transition in the future. In the meantime, EPA indicated that the agency will complete nine file reviews in 2019 to verify data in agencies that do not currently use CMDP. EPA's actions may improve its ability to oversee states' implementation of the act and provide more complete and accurate information on compliance, but because EPA's systems to replace data verification audits are not yet fully in place, we are keeping this recommendation open.

Recommendation: To improve EPA's ability to oversee the states' implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and provide Congress and the public with more complete and accurate information on compliance, the Administrator of EPA should work with the states to establish a goal, or goals, for the completeness and accuracy of data on monitoring violations. In setting these goals, EPA may want to consider whether certain types of monitoring violations merit specific targets. For example, the agency may decide that a goal for the states to completely and accurately report when required monitoring was not done should differ from a goal for reporting when monitoring was done but not reported on time.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. EPA is developing the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime, with several efforts underway as of September 2019 as we noted under recommendation 1, but until it is fully operational, EPA will not be able to work with states to establish a national goal for the quality of monitoring violations. EPA noted in 2017 that it expected SDWIS Prime to enable the agency and primacy agencies to better understand the nature of system violations and consider developing goals for monitoring and reporting violations. However, according to EPA, SDWIS Prime will not be released until mid-2020. EPA indicated plans to modify the Annual Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program Review requirements but the agency states that it is dependent on approval by the Office of the Inspector General. Despite the ongoing delays to address the call in the recommendation for establishing new goals, we are keeping this recommendation open while EPA continues its efforts to implement SDWIS Prime.

Recommendation: The Administrator, EPA, should take a number of steps to further protect the American public from elevated lead levels in drinking water. Specifically, to improve EPA's ability to oversee implementation of the lead rule and assess compliance and enforcement activities, EPA should ensure that data on water systems' test results, corrective action milestones, and violations are current, accurate, and complete.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change on the status of this recommendation. In June 2019, EPA reported to GAO that its tools for improving data about water systems compliance are not complete, though some states and laboratories have been exploring and testing incremental versions of them. EPA reported in a previous update that the agency had been working with states through face-to-face trainings and webinars on the reporting of milestone data. GAO will continue to monitor these efforts and reevaluate whether water systems' test results, corrective action milestones and violations are current, accurate and complete subsequent to the completion of the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal and the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime, described briefly below. However, until these new tools are complete, the status of this recommendation remains open. According to EPA, as of June 2018, SDWIS Prime has been available for exploring and testing, following incremental interim releases, since early 2018. In addition, EPA stated that SDWIS Prime will continue to be available for exploring and testing until the first production release anticipated for mid-2020.The agency has also focused on promoting electronic reporting of drinking water data through the development of the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP). In June 2019, EPA stated that as of May 31, 2019, 10 states and more than 200 laboratories were using CMDP. According to EPA, as a result of using CMDP, these states reported a 30-70 percent reduction in staff time for data processing and a 90-99 percent reduction in errors for data.