The Problem of Apathy and Economic Rationalization - Essay Example

? Clean Water in the Environmental Policy Context Official of POL 310 Larry Buenafe Arthur Piervincenti 16 Jan Introduction Surface water in the United States is prone to pollution from various sources of untreated sewerage. This therefore means that care must be taken to ensure that these water bodies are protected from circumstances that can give rise to contamination. Surface water like rivers and streams have three main common properties. First of all, it is a natural and environmental resources that hardly has private ownership. Due to this nature, it has to be kept clean and free of pollution from a public arrangement. Secondly, the maintenance of a pollution-free waterbody requires several technological and monitoring arrangements which can come at a high cost. Thirdly, water is an essential and abundant resource. People believe that they have the right to clean water. This therefore means that authorities need to ensure that waterbodies are clean and free of pollution. Additionally, the flora and fauna related to the ecosystems of rivers and other waterbodies have the right to be preserved. These three factors imply that federal and state governments have a primary obligation to ensure that water is free from pollution. The inherent nature of clean water issues means that government can only handle the issue of providing safe water through policy. This paper examines the challenges facing policymakers in providing clean water to the public. To this end, the focus will be on the Clean Water Act, 1977 which provides the basic policy framework to tackle this issue through pollution control programs and limitation of discharge into waterbodies (Summary of Clean Water Act, 2011). The research examines perspectives into the challenges facing this Act and comes up with recommendations on how to deal with these challenges. The paper undertakes a critical view of the recommendations and examines how it can be applied in reality. Clean Water Act 1977 The Clean Water Act was enacted “... to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters” (Section 101 a). This means that it provides a framework to ensure that practical steps are taken to prevent the pollution of our waterbodies. The Act empowers the US Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers and the States to take reasonable steps to prevent the pollution of surface water in the country (National Research Council, 2008 p65). These parties work together with the other law enforcement agencies to ensure that all limits the law is followed appropriately in local jurisdictions. The Act was ammended in 1981, 1987 and 1990 (National Research Council, 2008 p265). The Act has six different Titles. Title I is about research and related programs. It sets out the goals of the act and the preamble it follows. Title II is about Grants for the Construction of Treatment Works. It shows how the various municipalities will be assisted to expand sewerage treatment plants. Title III is about Standards & Enforcement. It borders on discharge points, technology quality standards, water quality programs as well as criminal and civil provision for the enforcement of the law. Title IV outlines the federal and state certification and the issuance of permits and licenses needed for various potential polluters. Title V is about the facts that citizens can sue polluters and the procedures they can follow for that. It also describes the protections offered to whistleblowers. Title VI is about funding for State and local water pollution control systems. Policy Challenges of the Clean Water Act There are three main significant challenges that can be identified in relation to the Clean Water Act. First of all, there is a major problem in relation to the uniformity of the application of the Act. Secondly, there is limited funding for treatment services as well as monitoring services to ensure that the Act is fully controlled and kept in motion. Thirdly, due to the apathy in the society and the existence of dominant businesses in the society, there is a chance that powerful persons in the society can override the rules of the policy. The application of the Clean Water Act 1972 is complicated because there is a clause in it that states that the in situations where there are unusual or exceptional sewerage that needs to be disposed off, ''… the best practicable control discharges...” must be used (Section 301 (b) (1)). This opens up the door for a high level of subjectivity. This is because the clause creates a gray area which many potential pollutants can exploit to dump dangerous materials into the rivers and waterbodies around the country. This and several other clauses that requires people to use the 'best' possible means implies that there will be dialog. However, it is apparent that the choices made by some interest groups could potentially lead to the fulfillment of personal interest to the detriment of weaker members of the society. Take for instance, the situation of the unborn generation who are hardly represented in most of these cases where the 'best' policy is identified. Such negotiations are likely to go in the favor of people the interest of people involved in the dialog rather than the wider society which is the main benefactor of the law and its related policies. The implementation and monitoring of policies require funding. Traditionally, environmental matters have been seen as an idealistic rather than a vital thing. In other words, people feel that environmental concerns should be handled only when economic concerns are fully achieved. A typical example is the recent Climate Change Conference in Durban, COP 17. Most participating nations showed clearly that they were not interested in cutting carbon emissions in favor of saving the climate. Due to this, there is a general problem with the implementation and monitoring of these problems. The Clean Water Act requires states and other groups to monitor the rivers and waterbodies with a very limited budget. Due to this, there is a risk based approach in examining problems and identifying solutions to them. Thus, there is a chance that some parties can use ways and means of dumping pollutants into rivers without being noticed. Secondly, Congress approves a limited budget to states to support the establishment of treatment plants. This certainly means that some important treatment systems will go rather unattended to and this will lead to entities having to dump their wastes in rivers and waterbodies. Environmental matters are hardly the concern of ordinary Americans. The ordinary American is always busy concentrating on his daily life and has a very remote connection to rivers and waterbodies. This therefore means that there is very limited support that the relevant bodies can get in implementing and monitoring the implementation of these laws. Thus, in practice, the environmental policy sector is left to be ran by dominant parties like the EPA, Corporate Entities and Concerned Green Groups. This means that many of such persons will exert undue influence over the process and this will mean that there will be overrides and the achievement of the ends of the law will be affected adversely. Perspectives of the Challenges. There are two main perspectives that have contributed significantly to the problems of water pollution. The first one is the fact that environmental matters and waterbodies are seen as distant situations that people have limited interests in handling such situations. Secondly, the economic rationalization of corporate actions have led to the continued pollution of our waterbodies. Most people consider environmental problems as secondary. It is not the concern of most people to get involved in environmental matters in any way. In places like schools where environmental matters are taught, students just view it as a necessary evil. Most people are not genuinely concerned with environmental matters. Of course, there is always a more 'important' matter to be dealt with like making money, paying taxes and raising children. This leaves the problem of the environment almost no position in our society. In cases where journalists have sought to bring these environmental problems to light in the media, most people view it as a distant situation. The seriousness they attach to it is no more than what a person does when s/he watches a movie. This therefore means that the idea of environmental laws and waterbody protection is seen as a task left to the professionals in the field. This leaves these acts with little support from the wider society. Secondly, most businesses still put profits first. The profit motive of capitalist nations means that people concentrate more on making money than being responsible in their operations. Due to this, the moral element of the Clean Water Act, which includes the protection of waterbodies and ecosystem is being lost. Typically, most businesses will always use ways and means of circumventing the Clean Act law. This is done by hiring a good lawyer and lobbying with influential parties to get their own way of improving profits. The problem is so acute that the legalistic nature of the law and its related matters makes it lose its value as a tool for the protection of the society. Recommendations Butler & Macey identify that the excessive federalization of environmental policy has led to inadequate command and control, wrong prioritization, misuse of resources and discouraged use of superior technology (2008 p1). This therefore shows clearly that the Clean Water Act is one that is highly limited in several ways. In improving its scope, I recommend that there following steps be taken: 1. The promotion of decentralization. 2. Wider involvement of local constitutents of the society. 3. The creation of a proactive system of enactment of relevant laws to deal with these problems. 4. The creation of a stronger national policy for environmental protection. I recommend that there should be wider decentralization. This will ensure that more and more local authorities in conjunction with their states can have the power to set up environmental laws under the Clean Water Act that is more relevant to their situations and conditions. The decentralization must be one that will utilize a proactive approach in the definition of specific requirements for specific waterbodies in a given local area. This will create specific jurisdictions with exact requirements that will be monitored to attain stated ends. The local people in a given community must also be given direct involvement in these law making and monitoring system. They should be attracted at the grassroot to get involved in the making of rules and regulations for the water bodies in the community. In this wise, weaker generations and unborn persons should be considered and given recognition in the action of the present generation. Also, the American government must give greater priority and concern to environmental matters and concerns. In the recent Climate Change Conference in South Africa, America was singled out as a nation that does not have a 'serious' approach to saving the environment. Clearly, what is keeping the Obama Administration and other governments from doing this is the fact that any explicit effort might upset major corporate entities and the economy. Due to this, most governments prefer to be quiet about environmental issues since they are not very important voting criterion. However, if an act like the Clean Water Act of 1972 is to be put to use, it must be done in the context of a policy system that values the whole idea of environmental matters. This therefore means that the government needs to make more effort to make environmental matters a great priority. Evaluation of Recommendations Decentralization comes with a lot of benefits. It will get the key players at the grassroots of the society talking and discussing significant matters that is in their best interest. To a large extent, it will reduce apathy and make people more interested in the protection of waterbodies in their local communities. Decentralization will also ensure that there will be laws that will cut down the misuse of water resources. This implies that it will ensure the awareness and involvement of people and this will mean a legal machinery will be created that will deal with problems appropriately. The issue of relevance will be given a priority and this will ensure that problems will be given better attention. However, decentralization comes with several risks. First of all, it is expensive to maintain a system of delegated legislature. This comes with administrative costs that might not be met by the current government. Secondly, most governments will ensure that decentralized authorities are headed by their own favorite to ensure that their policies are translated to the grassroots without resistance. This will mean that the effort will hardly yield any results. The creation of a centralized framework that will strongly ensure that priority is given to environmental concern is important. This is because it will give the whole idea of environmental matter a national voice. This will ensure that society takes acts like the Clean Water Act more seriously. This will help in the enforcement of these laws and give the local governments a voice. The drawback of the prioritization of environmental laws in the country is that it will have a big negative influence on the economy. This is because it will cause Americans to produce less whilst other country continue to disregard such needs and requirements. It is therefore important for America to carefully weigh the sides of this issue. However, it can also be argued that if America makes the observance of environmental laws like the Clean Water Act important, other nations will follow suit. Conclusion Although there are challenges in enactment and enforcement relating to the Clean Water Act, it is important and significant. The problem of apathy and economic rationalization is a main stumbling block to the Act. However, decentralization and an appropriate empowerment from the Federal government can support the enforcement of the Act. References Butler, H. N. & Macey, R. (2008) Using Federalism to Improve Environmental Policy 2Edn New York: American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research. Clean Water Act Enforcement (2010) Environmental Protection Agency Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/index.html National Research Council (2008) Mississippi River Water Quality & The Clean Water Act Washington: National Academic Press. Ryan M. (2003) The Clear Water Act Handbook Chicago IL: American Bar Association. Sipes, J. L. (2008) Sustainable Solutions for Water Resources Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Publishing. Summary of the Clean Water Act (2011) Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html Read More