charge such as pipes and concentrated animal feedlots. Nonpoint
sources, while not defined in the original legislation, have been de-
fined to include discharge from diffuse areas such as runoff from
farm and ranch land, mining operations and construction sites. Ini-
tially, the federal government’s role in pollution control focused on
PS pollution. The states, in cooperation with the federal govern-
ment, were responsible for overseeing NPS pollution control (Hari).
Over time, federal emphasis shifted from PS to NPS control (Car-
riker, p. 13). This policy shift was largely manifested with passage of
the Water Quality Act of 1987 (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1329). The change was
due largely to federal success in controlling PS pollution. In addi-
tion, it became apparent the states had been unsuccessful in control-
ling NPS pollution and increased federal participation would be nec-
essary to meet targeted water quality standards (Fentress, pp.
808-809).
The Baucus-Chafee bill goes even farther and would vest greater
federal oversight in controlling NPS pollution. Nonpoint source
pollution is one of the key elements of that proposed legislation
(American Farm Bureau Federation). Key Baucus-Chafee provi-
sions addressing NPS pollution amend CWA sections 302 and 319.
Section 304 of the Baucus-Chafee bill, “Nonpoint Pollution Control,”
amends CWA Section 319 by calling for revision of NPS manage-
ment plans. Under this revision, EPA is given significantly more con-
trol over the substance and format of these plans. This is accom-
plished by requiring that the EPA Administrator issue “guidance” in
the preparation and implementation of CWA Section 319 plans
(Krause and Porterfield, p. 9).
Agricultural interests see the amendment of CWA Section 302,
“Comprehensive Watershed Management,” and not 304, as the cen-
tral NPS focus of Baucus- Chafee (Krause and Porterfield, p. 7).
Their belief is based, in part, on the use of comprehensive water-
shed management plans as a means of “integrating water protection
quality efforts under the Act with other natural resource protection
efforts” (Senate Bill 1114, Sec. 321 (a)(1)(B)) and allowing for
groundwater to be identified within a watershed management area.
Both provisions would expand the scope of NPS oversight.
Some interests express concern with the language of Section 302
of the bill addressing “Activities of Federal Agencies.” This new sec-
tion would provide that “each activity of a Federal agency that af-
fects land use, water quality, or the natural resources with a water-
shed planning unit for which a plan has been approved, be carried
out in a manner that is consistent with the policies established in the
plan.” (Senate Bill 1114, Sec. 321 (h)(2)(A)). Since EPA must ap-
prove any watershed designation plan, and since federal agencies
are required to act in accordance with that plan, critics argue this
provision could place numerous federal activities under the control
179