PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2025
Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II
This bill provides an alternative permitting process for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant located in San Diego, California, to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.
Currently, the plant operates with a temporary variance (or waiver) from certain NPDES treatment standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The City of San Diego has applied for a new variance for the plant. If the variance is not granted, then the city must obtain a new NPDES permit and fully comply with the treatment standards.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue an NPDES permit that requires the plant to comply with certain conditions. Thus, it eliminates the need for the city to apply for another variance so long as it obtains the conditional NPDES permit and the plant:
maintains its current deep ocean outfall pipe;
complies with specified annual and monthly limits for total suspended solids (e.g., sewage);
removes at least 80% of total suspended solids from the discharge on a monthly average and 58% of biochemical oxygen demand on an annual average;
attains all other effluent limitations of secondary treatment;
complies with CWA pretreatment requirements and other requirements applicable to NPDES permits;
provides to the EPA 10 consecutive years of compliance data and analysis; and
demonstrates that it will produce at least 83 million gallons per day on an annual average of water safe for human consumption by December 31, 2039.
People & committees
Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1390 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1390 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1390 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1390 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-14 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II would let the Environmental Protection Agency issue a special ocean-discharge permit for San Diego’s Point Loma wastewater plant. That permit would set plant-specific pollution limits while retaining other treatment requirements. The applicant would have to provide ocean-monitoring evidence and demonstrate future production of water suitable for potable reuse, subject to federal and state regulatory permission. The supplied introduced text is a proposal, not evidence of enacted law.
This Act may be cited as the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II.
the Administrator may issue a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) for a discharge from the Point Loma Plant into marine waters that requires compliance with the requirements described in subsection (b).
attainment of all other effluent limitations of secondary treatment as determined by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(d)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)(1)), other than any requirements otherwise applicable to the discharge of biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids;
the applicant provide 10 consecutive years of ocean monitoring data and analysis
to the extent potable reuse is permitted by Federal and State regulatory agencies, that the applicant demonstrate that at least 83,000,000 gallons per day on an annual average of water suitable for potable reuse will be produced by December 31, 2039
The bill would authorize, but would not require, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator to issue the special permit despite otherwise applicable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The authority would apply specifically to the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant owned by San Diego on the enactment date; references to the State mean California.
Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Administrator may issue a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) for a discharge from the Point Loma Plant into marine waters that requires compliance with the requirements described in subsection (b).
The term Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The term Point Loma Plant means the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant owned by the City of San Diego on the date of enactment of this Act.
The term State means the State of California.
A special permit would require maintenance of the plant’s currently designed ocean-discharge outlet, with discharge at least 300 feet deep and at least 4 miles offshore.
A permit issued under this section shall require— (1) maintenance of the currently designed deep ocean outfall from the Point Loma Plant with a discharge depth of not less than 300 feet and distance from the shore of not less than 4 miles;
As applicable during the permit term, annual discharge limits for total suspended solids would tighten in three steps: 12,000 metric tons starting at enactment, 11,500 starting December 31, 2029, and 9,942 starting December 31, 2031.
as applicable to the term of the permit, discharge of not more than 12,000 metric tons of total suspended solids per year commencing on the date of enactment of this section, not more than 11,500 metric tons of total suspended solids per year commencing on December 31, 2029, and not more than 9,942 metric tons of total suspended solids per year commencing on December 31, 2031;
The permit would also cap total suspended-solids concentration at 60 milligrams per liter, measured as a 30-day average.
discharge of not more than 60 milligrams per liter of total suspended solids, calculated as a 30-day average;
Treatment would have to remove at least 80 percent of total suspended solids on a monthly average and at least 58 percent of biochemical oxygen demand on an annual average. Removal at all wastewater treatment processes upstream from and at the plant would count toward these requirements. The bill defines biochemical oxygen demand as biological oxygen demand as used in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
removal of not less than 80 percent of total suspended solids on a monthly average and not less than 58 percent of biochemical oxygen demand on an annual average, taking into account removal occurring at all treatment processes for wastewater upstream from and at the Point Loma Plant;
The term biochemical oxygen demand means biological oxygen demand, as such term is used in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The permit would require all other secondary-treatment effluent limits determined by the administrator under section 304(d)(1), while excepting otherwise applicable discharge requirements for biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids. The bill sets separate requirements for those pollutants. The referenced law is not supplied, so the full comparison with otherwise applicable standards cannot be determined here.
attainment of all other effluent limitations of secondary treatment as determined by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(d)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)(1)), other than any requirements otherwise applicable to the discharge of biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids;
removal of not less than 80 percent of total suspended solids on a monthly average and not less than 58 percent of biochemical oxygen demand on an annual average
Federal permit-issuance requirements would still apply, including California’s concurrence consistent with section 401 and an evaluation under the law’s ocean-discharge criteria.
compliance with the requirements applicable to Federal issuance of a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, including State concurrence consistent with section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) and ocean discharge criteria evaluation pursuant to section 403 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1343);
The term State means the State of California.
The permit would require implementation of the pretreatment program requirements in section 301(h)(5) and (6), in addition to the requirements of section 402(b)(8). Their specific duties are not reproduced in the supplied bill.
implementation of the pretreatment program requirements of paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 301(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(h)) in addition to the requirements of section 402(b)(8) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(8));
For each application, the applicant would have to submit ocean-monitoring data and analysis covering the immediately preceding 10 consecutive years. The evidence must satisfy the administrator that permitted discharges would meet section 301(h)(2). The applicant must also have established, and maintain throughout the permit term, an ocean-monitoring program meeting or exceeding section 301(h)(3).
that the applicant provide 10 consecutive years of ocean monitoring data and analysis for the period immediately preceding the date of each application for a permit under this section sufficient to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the discharge of pollutants pursuant to a permit issued under this section will meet the requirements of section 301(h)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(h)(2)) and that the applicant has established and will maintain throughout the permit term an ocean monitoring program that meets or exceeds the requirements of section 301(h)(3) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(h)(3));
To the extent federal and state regulators permit potable reuse, the applicant would have to demonstrate that at least 83 million gallons per day of water suitable for that reuse would be produced by December 31, 2039, measured as an annual average. Production at wastewater treatment processes upstream from and at Point Loma would count. The condition concerns water suitable for potable reuse; it does not say that this amount must actually be delivered as drinking water.
to the extent potable reuse is permitted by Federal and State regulatory agencies, that the applicant demonstrate that at least 83,000,000 gallons per day on an annual average of water suitable for potable reuse will be produced by December 31, 2039, taking into account production of water suitable for potable reuse occurring at all treatment processes for wastewater upstream from and at the Point Loma Plant.
The administrator would have to set development milestones needed for compliance and make them conditions of every special permit issued before December 31, 2039. That date limits this milestone requirement; the provision does not state that the special permitting authority expires then.
The Administrator shall determine development milestones necessary to ensure compliance with this section and include such milestones as conditions in each permit issued under this section before December 31, 2039.
The applicant could instead apply for a Point Loma permit that complies with secondary treatment pursuant to sections 301(b)(1)(B) and 402.
Nothing in this section prevents the applicant from alternatively submitting an application for the Point Loma Plant that complies with secondary treatment pursuant to section 301(b)(1)(B) and section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(B); 33 U.S.C. 1342).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated April 14, 2026, records House introduction and referrals to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment on February 14, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-04-14T17:43:56Z. 2025-02-14: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 2025-02-14: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2025-02-14: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-14. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision unrelated to the bill’s main subject or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the absence of riders in other versions or accompanying materials. No amendment attachment history is established.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; it does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials, and formal earmark disclosures are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The finding identifies a narrow regulatory exception. Classification does not judge its justification or establish its environmental or financial effects.
San Diego’s Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant would receive access to a special permitting route unavailable under this bill to other facilities. This facility-specific exception is central to the bill’s main policy. The route would apply the bill’s conditions while excepting otherwise applicable biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended-solids discharge requirements from its requirement to meet other secondary-treatment effluent limits. This is a targeted regulatory benefit conditional on the bill’s permit requirements, not a guarantee of permit issuance. Because the referenced law and existing permit are absent, the supplied sources do not establish the full change from the plant’s current obligations.
Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Administrator may issue a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) for a discharge from the Point Loma Plant into marine waters that requires compliance with the requirements described in subsection (b).
attainment of all other effluent limitations of secondary treatment as determined by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(d)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)(1)), other than any requirements otherwise applicable to the discharge of biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids;
The term Point Loma Plant means the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant owned by the City of San Diego on the date of enactment of this Act.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI