Environmental Law: The Clean Water Act - Term Paper Example

The Clean Water Act The initial to this act was The Federal Water Pollution Act. It was established in the year 1948 as a major U.S. law to address pollution in water. Due to the growth in public awareness and concerns to control the water pollution, the law encountered numerous amendments which resulted to a huge change of the act in the year 1972. (Environmental laws) In this year, the law was commonly named the Clean Water Act (CWA). He modern clean water act had to establish a national commitment to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters in the nation. This act has been in the fore front in improving the health of lakes, coastal waters and rivers. It has made it possible to stop billions of pounds of pollution and increase the number of waterways that are safe for fishing and swimming dramatically. In April of the year 2004, Carl Pope of the Sierra state “For the first time since the Clean Water Act was passed and enacted under President Nixon, for the first time, EPA reported last year that America’s waterways are getting dirtier.” (Environmental laws)This is a clear statement revealing a good span of years that U.S. had clean water due to the enactment of the Clean water Act. This was made possible through the tremendous timeline that the government policy took to change health of America’s water since its inception. The government policy changes on the Clean Water Act started way back in the 1968. According to a survey that was conducted then, pollution in the Bay of Chesapeake resulted to 3 million dollar fishing industrial losses annually. At the same time, the U.S. Bureau of Sports and Fisheries had measured DDT in 584 of 590 samples available and the results were levels higher nine times the FDA limit. This is a clear indicator in the rapid pollution that was taking place in the U.S. water bodies. In 1969, it was realized that the bacterial levels in the Hudson River increased to 170 times above the safe limits.rhe number of fish reported to be killed in the same year was over 41 million. This is a high record compared to the previous results. This included a record of the killing of the largest fish number ever in a single lake. (Science and health, 2002) A record 26 million fish were reported to be killed in Lake Thonotosassa in Florida due to pollution resulting through the discharge of waste materials from four food processing plants into the lake. In the same year, A floating oil slick was discovered on the Cuyahoga river, south east of Cleveland in Ohio state. It busted into flame and caused fire damage to two railroad trestles causing a very significant economical effect. The cause of the fire was never confirmed but clear indications from the investigations reveal a discharge of petroleum oil that is highly volatile into the water. The petroleum oil may have low flash point according to the report, to be ignited through chance occurrence like a spark from a passing by train. (Ryan, 2003) In 1970 Education, Welfare’s Bureau of Water Hygiene and Health departments reported chemical exceeding in 30 percent of Public Health limits as require for the drinking water samples. This was due to water pollution that was in increase. In 1971 there was a report from the FDA on February indicating that 87 percent of swordfish samples had high mercury levels making them unfit for human consumption. In the understanding of fish environment it was clear that the pollution in waters had a massive effect in the lives of creatures within. (Houck, 2002) 1972 marked the culmination of a number of water pollution by enactment of regulatory law. This was made possible due to the response made to the unchecked dumping of industrial wastes into waterways. At that time, the county’s rivers, coastal waters and lakes had become unsafe for swimming and fishing by a big margin equivalent to two-thirds of the water ways polluted. It had gone to an extent where untreated sewage was being discharged into open water hence the emergence of the Clean Water Act to reduce pollution in U.S. waterways. The act had a theme stating “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our nation’s water.” The law was dubbed “zero discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985, and fishable and swimmable waters by 1983.” (Robert, 2009)The amendments made to the water act established the basic structure for pollutants regulation that are discharged into the waters of the U.S. The amendments gave EPA the implementations authority pollution control programs like setting standards of waste waters for industries. The amendments also retained the existing requirements in setting standards of water quality for all surface water contaminants. The amendments made it unlawful for anyone who discharges any pollutants into the navigable waters from a point source, unless the person obtains permit in line with the existing provisions. The amendments also paved way for the funding and construction of sewage treatment plants under a grant construction program. It had to recognize the need for planning in order to address the major problems that are posed by pollutions which have unrecognized point source. After the 1972 amendments were enacted into the formation of the Clean Water Act, there were subsequent amendments that modified that modified the earlier provisions. This was possible due to the dynamics and developments that emerged with the changing technologies. In 1981, there were revisions made that streamlined the grants construction process under the municipal, improving the treatment plant capabilities that are built under the program. The contraction grants program was then phased out in the year 1987 and was replaced by State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. This fund is nowadays known as Clean Water State Revolving Fund. (Richard & W., 1996)The new funding strategy addresses needs for quality of water through building on EPA- state partnerships. In the year 2001, the supreme court in the U.S. Issued a 5-to-4 opinion on ac case on the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County against Army Corps of Engineers. The opinion was because Federal Clean Water Act was demanded protection for wetlands that were thousand in numbers and served as habitats for migratory birds. The ruling implicated a broad application of the Clean Water Act thereby, impinging on states power and rules which was not in line to the law to protect isolated wetlands. The water pollution is still a huge concern of the present government decades after implementation of the regulations. (Alder, Landman, & Cameron, 1993)Today, 45 percent of the lakes, 51 percent of the waterway and 39 percent of the rivers are experiencing high pollutions. The recent years have seen a decline in the protection of waters in the U.S. through the Clean Water Act. There were several basic protections that were built in the law which included program on oil spill prevention, discharge of unpermitted point source and program for cleanup of impaired water. The organizations that were mandated to implement the law had reflected on the intentions of the Congress to protect all waters in U.S. Majority of the courts had upheld the idea that the agencies implementing the act had to cover the water tributaries, adjacent wetlands and intrastate waters which had links to interstate commerce. (Environmental Committee, 2001)This was until 2001 when the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary and gave an opening to the polluters who through decades were able to weaken the rules by putting much pressure to the Clean Water Act implementing agencies. The confusion created resulted to laxity by the agencies and the field staffs in implementation of the act unless through an intervention from the headquarters in Washington DC. The courts and agencies have put the America’s waters to a risk. In 2008, a memorandum from the EPA’s office in charge of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance gave a report indicating that the nation’s waters are left without the full protection needed under the Clean Water Act giving polluters leeway to unlawful acts. A number of Clean Water Act cases brought by the enforcers could not materialize and were either dropped or given low priority by the courts. This is because of the recent concerns by the Supreme Court’s decisions questioning the pollution protection of certain rivers, wetlands, streams and other waterways by the Clean Water Act. This legal uncertainty was expunged by the EPA and Army Corps policy guide to their field staff which had undermined the clear ways of enforcing the law to a larger extent. In accordance to a memo by the agency; “a significant portion of the Clean Water Act enforcement docket has been adversely affected.” (Gerber, 2009)Between the year 2006 in July and December of the year 2007, the agency resolved to drop pursuit of all existing charges of Clean Water Act violators which had accumulated to 300 in number. This was because of the uncertainty in the jurisdiction that was created by the Rapanos’ guidance and decision. 147 cases could not materialize due uncertainty of the jurisdictions of the Clean Water Act hence lowering of the enforcement action priorities. Due to this jurisdiction on the cases brought to the courts, over 500 enforcement cases were affected. The America’s water bodies have experienced tremendous harm due to the judicial tussles. The waters that have lost the Clean Water Act protections include intermittent, ephemeral and headwater streams. These waters supply drinking water systems for the public that constitute to more than 110 million Americans consumption. More than 40 percent of the facilities that should be under the watch of the Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) argue that there is no need to obtaining the permit as per the Supreme Court rulings, exposing the limitations to pollution levels. Filling or dredging streams and filling and draining wetlands can exacerbate flooding down the stream with numerous public economic and safety implications. Research done pollution indicates that a single acre of wetland is capable of storing 1 to 1.5 million gallons of flood water. The continental United States is composed of larger number of wetlands that saves an estimate of 30 billion dollars in annual repair costs due to fold damages. The EPA report indicates an annual cost of 1.5 million dollars or repair to replace the damage into a 5,000 acre drained Minnesota wetland tract. Presently, there is a confusion, disarray and delay regarding the implementation of the Clean Water Act. The federal courts are still struggling to determine how to implement the decision made by the Supreme Court. This creates a conflicting judicial jurisdictions and uncertain standards in various parts of the country. This has resulted to opaque and unnecessary attacks on the law going beyond facts that are unnecessary. Due to the confusion, the public is stuck with indeterminate status. There is need for the congress to act with speed in passing a legislation that will help the clear legal scope of the Act. The request by the government on clarification of the applicable standards, taking in mind one district court judge’s assessment on the Rapanos’ decision was ducked by the Supreme Court. The district judge’s decision states “I will not compare the decision to making sausage because it would excessively demean sausage makers.” (Clean water Act modernization, 1994)The jurisdictional confusion over the Clean Water Act has resulted in to delays on permitting relevant decisions. The new rules that were put in place by the government regulators require a completion of a 12 page application form. In order to figure that form, one has to go through studying 86 page instruction booklets. This increases the time taken to get permit to a minimum of three months as analyzed by The Corps of Engineers. In the year 2009, U.S. senator Russell Feingold, D-WI introduced The Clean Water Restoration Act bill in order to fill the already existing loop holes in water pollution and endorse the Clean Water Act. The bill was intended to restore the longstanding safeguards for the water resources in the nation in order to put back the path that leads to safe drinking water, safe lakes, streams and lakes. The bill under the banner “The Clean Water Restoration Act” was to adopt a clear definition of the meaning to “water of the United States” based on EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ longstanding regulations. The new law was to eliminate the word “navigable” which was the center of controversy on the Clean Water Act so as to expound on the purpose of the law in protecting the nation from water pollutions. The congress was also to dig deep into the findings on inclusion of isolated waters such as headwater stream, ponds, lakes, wetlands and small rivers into the law. In March 2014, The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers gave a proposal release concerning how to fix the Clean Water Act and protect the Wildlife and Waters in America. The proposed rule gave a clarity on which waters are protected by the already existing Act. The rule had the intention to restoring the protection to all the tributaries of waters that have already been covered by the Clean Water Act. It also included the wetlands, lakes and other waterways that are within or adjacent to the tributaries’ floodplains. The rule also excludes many of the man-made ditches, irrigation systems and ponds honoring the law s that currently are exceptional for normal ranching, forestry practices and farming in their specific points. The excellent proposal leaves many important waters at risk. The proposal also takes into account the other parties affected to the Act like the wildlife habitat and Critical fish. It also looks at the pollution filters which include Carolina bays, pairie potholes, vernal pools and playa lakes that will remain unprotected through the gazatement of the bill. These waters are known as flood water storage zones, pollution filters and habitats for wildlife and critical fish. These waters also form the major importance in the health of downstream bays and rivers. The connections may be less obvious due to their location that is beyond the rivers’ and streams’ floodplains. There is need to make science cases the protecting theme such as “water of the United States” in order to restore longstanding protections for the water. (rules, 2000) There is need for the public to demonstrate more and broad support for a consecutive rule making and guidance on Act implementations. The nongovernmental organizations and civil right organizations need to come in to propel the Congress to make more implementations. The organizations also require giving in proposals that are workable to the Congress in order to resolve the stalemates related to the water act. There is need for public awareness and waste producing companies and employees to be informed of the effects of water pollution regular basis. The parties involve should be given practical examples to give more emphasis in the important of water safety. The nation’s residents are also essential to the reduction of water pollution by being the watchdog for the government and being responsible for the activities that happen around them on maintaining 100 percent safety of all waterways and bodies. This can be made possible by creation of regulations/ policies that empower the citizens in championing the water safety. References Alder, R. W., Landman, J. C., & Cameron, D. M. (1993). The Clean Water Act 20years later. Washington DC: Island Press. Clean water Act modernization. (1994, October 17). Retrieved March 28, 2014, from Water Envirnment Federation: ww,wef.org Environmental Committee. (2001). Compensating for Wetland loses under the Clean Water Act. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Environmental laws. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2014, from United States Environmental Protection Agency: www.epa.gov Gerber, D. (2009, May 25). Clean water restoration. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from Clean Water Action: www.cleanwateracion.org Houck, O. A. (2002). The Clean Water Act TMDL Program: Law, Policy and Implementation. Washington DC: Environmenta Law Institute. R. A. (2003). The Clen Water Act Handbook. Illinois: ABA publishing press. Richard, H. S., & W., W. (1996). Enforcing the law: The case of the Clean Water Acts. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. Robert, C. K. (2009). The Clean Water Act and The Constitution: Legal structure and the public right to a clean and health environment. United States: Island Press. rules, J. B. (2000). The new face of the Clean Water Act: . United States: Oxford University Press. Science and health. (2002, December 20). Retrieved March 29, 2014, from NOW: ww.pbs.org Read More