Case Analysis Of The Clean Water System

Traditional laws such as the Clean Water Act sets precedent regarding the nature of pollutants and navigable water flows. The South Florida Water Management District decision to dump these phosphorus pollutants into the Okeechobee River without the proper permission, is an example of existing laws impacting state activities when it comes to water management.

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ chemical land farming operation near their homes that are polluting the air violates Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 and Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Plaintiffs contend that these human rights violations are demonstrated by the fact that, (1) the Defendants failed to operate their pollution control equipment and (2) the Defendants did not acquire a permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to store hazardous waste in Alsen, Louisiana.

The citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act is an important tool to protect and improve rivers, creeks, streams, and wetlands especially as state agencies may not have the resources to conduct regular water quality monitoring on every water body. Citizen involvement in monitoring and reporting pollution problems is key to watershed protection; hereby helping the government enforce the laws.

In order to have a thriving and healthy society a clean water supply is a very simple but necessary resource. Dating back to the beginning of civilizations the need for clean water was an essential need. The Clean Water Act dates to Franklin D Roosevelt’s administration. In 1972 Congress amended and passed what is now known as the Clean Water Act to protect our precious resource of water. The clean water Act prevented the dumping of pollutants into navigable waters without a permit. Many municipalities and commercial entities had previously dumped sewage and unregulated waste in to our rivers and streams contaminating a great percentage of our drinking water. This wreck less contamination of our waterways not only affected humans but also affected our wildlife including fish and animal’s life that depended on these waters. Any municipality or company that could affect our waters would need to apply for a permit to do so. While the Clean Water Act was a landmark legislation that was supported by both Democrats and Republicans alike over the years has seen expansion of the EPA’s interpretation of the law and has created a controversy in Administrative Law that has many challenges up to the Unites States Supreme Court. (Television, n.d.)

Filing a case against the Metropolitan Water District and also citing five real parties of interest, according to case number RIC1714672 with the Riverside County Superior Court, PVID’s action to sue the state’s largest municipal water agency came about due to

After the trial court had dismissed the case along with affirmation from the 10th Circuit Court, the U.S Supreme Court reversed and remanded it to the court of appeals. During the decision process,

In 2013, Anacostia Riverkeeper, an organization devoted to restoring the Anacostia River, challenged a permit issued in 2010 by the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). The MDE issued a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit to Montgomery County, Maryland (Edwards, 2015). MS4 systems fall under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, which require maximum controlled pollution in storm water (Maryland Department of the Environment, 2015). The MS4 permit required the county to administer best management practices

In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), “the Commission required that petitioner [Florence Dolan] dedicate the portion of her property lying within the 100-year floodplain for improvement of a storm drainage system along Fanno Creek and that she dedicate an additional 15-foot strip of land adjacent to the floodplain as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway” in order to relieve traffic congestion to and from her plumbing and electric supply store (Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994, 2). This case differs, but in both Nollan and Dolan, the City failed to make an individualized determination that the required dedications are related to the projected impact of the proposed development. Surely, in both cases the nexus test was used to determine if the

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

On September 16, 2016, a complaint for negligence against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (“DC Water”) was filed in D.C. Superior Court. DC Water is preparing to answer the complaint on or before November 1, 2016.

The Sackett v. EPA case was regarding the Clean Water Act that the Sacketts petitioned

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Circuit. R. 22–30. The decision and order of the United States District Court, District of Wisteria denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial. R. 13–21.

The attempt to link the harm to the behavior of the defendant produced its share of successes and failures for the Schlichtmann team. Not only did the plaintiffs have to prove that the corporations contaminated the water, but they also had to show that the contamination caused the leukemia and the other health problems. To do this they enlisted the help and expertise of numerous doctors and specialists. Naturally the defending side recruited their own set of experts. As in any case, each side is going to have an expert who will refute the testimony of the other side’s expert. This is a normal part of arguing a case, but can cause confusion and complication on the part of the jurors.

TMDLs measure the maximum amount of pollutant allow to enter the water without impacting the water quality.The drawback being that most states have lacked the resources to undertake this task, and the EPA has been circumspect to step in and to take responsibility, due to that fact that it lacks the necessary personnel to do the job nationwide. Since the late 1980s, there have over 40 lawsuits in 38 states against the EPA regarding TMDL.(Water Encyclopedia), Recent,Waterkeepers Chesapeake and 7 other Riverkeeper organizations, represented by Earthjustice organization,a non-profit environmental law firm, have filed lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the involvement of the delisting of 53 river segments in 17 Maryland counties and Baltimore City. This lawsuit challenges a regulatory action by the EPA that followed the approval of the Bay

Clean water supply is essential in establishing and maintaining a healthy community. There are two sources of water supply which are the surface water and ground water. Most natural waters are not suitable for consumption as it is contaminated by pathogens and also natural chemicals and minerals. In addition, as a city grew, wastes from human activities contaminate most of the water supplies. Water treatment plays an important role to properly treat a contaminated source of water supply in order to protect the health of consumers. Water treatment process is defined as a process of eliminating pollutants from untreated water to produce a biologically and chemically risk-free water, which is both potable and palatable for human consumption