Clean Water Act 1948

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 the county of Waukesha lies a small city of the same name where there have been several issues with water. These issues, tainted / polluted groundwater, have led to the city’s need of Great Lakes water, specifically from Lake Michigan. This seems like an easy fix, however the Waukesha County and Wisconsin government is still a bit weary to allow all of Waukesha Lake Michigan water. Waukesha citizens see this issue as being “but a drop from the gigantic Great Lakes bucket.” There are several reasons why the government will not allow water from the Great Lakes to Waukesha, but also several good examples of why they need the water. These reasons being the 2008 compact made specifically for this type of incident and the fact that Waukesha

The story Thirst reflects on how global corporations like Nestle, Suez, and Veolia are rapidly purchasing local water sources such as lakes, streams, and springs. Those companies are also taking control of public water services. While trying to privatize and turn a larger profit off of water, they have manipulated and bought politicians, have gone “under the table” to make deals and undermined the democratic process by trying to deny citizens a voice in fundamental decisions about their most essential public resource. The authors ' Thirst explain the emergence of a controversial new water wars in the United States and showing how communities here are fighting this battle, often against companies headquartered overseas. The three followed water privatization battles across the United States from California to Massachusetts and from Georgia to Wisconsin, documenting the rise of public opposition to corporate control of water resources. These towns find it hard to balance a budget, so when large companies come in and offer to control the water the town looks at it as a major way to cut costs, but what it ends up costing is much more.

According to the EPA, 117 million Americans drink water accessed water currently protected by the CWA, 1/3 of them receiving their water from streams and wetlands. With the passage of HR 5087, the protection of these waters will be compromised, leading to an increase in water pollution. Typical ailments caused by ingesting or touching polluted water can include body rashes, liver or stomach damage, respiratory distress, and neurological defects. While the proposed ‘WOTUS’ would clarify how previously contested streams and wetlands are protected, HR 5087 bans any new regulations or resolutions to be implemented. HR 5078 is a direct threat to public health and water protection.

The outcome of interest in this study is the passage of the Water Rule under the Obama administration. This is the dependent variable as it defines the parameters for the Clean Water Act. These parameters include navigable waters used for commerce, and its tributaries that pass Justice Kennedy’s significant nexus test. The adoption of this definition is proof that a change in policy occurred that gave clear parameters to federal jurisdiction of which waters are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act.

The main body of the law currently in force is based on the Federal amendments on Water Pollution Control 1972 and has significantly expanded from the initial Federal amendments 1948. The main changes were approved in the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Law on Water Quality of 1987.

Before engaging in the causal nexus issue between methane emissions and public health, we must first establish a brief introduction of the EPA’s regulatory authority for its proposals. It is not entirely necessary to provide a historical framework of environmental law dating back to public and nuisance common law actions between states, but it is necessary to point to a few cases that sort of gave rise to the CAA.

According to the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in 1972, the Federal water pollution control act was created. It’s also known as the Clean Water Act. In 1936, there’s was a river that flowed from Ohio to Lake Erie. It became so polluted that for 30 years it became inflamed multiple times. It wasn’t until another major fire in 1969, that encourage news and magazines to cover the issue

Enacted in 1972, the Clean Water Act was formulated with the goals of putting the end to the discharging of high quantities of contaminated materials into water resources, and further prevent pollution of water , and making sure that surface waters met the standards needed to support human and agricultural usage. Essentially, the Clean Water Act stipulates the fundamental structure used in the regulation of discharges of toxic pollutants into water resources of the US and ensuring conformance of quality standards for groundwater (Environmental Protection Agency). The Clean Water Act was draws based on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, which was later developed and revised in 1972 to the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to implement programs to control pollution example being the establishment of standards for wastewater discharge for various industries. In addition, the CWA establishes the water quality standards applicable to all groundwater contaminants. The Clean Water Act makes it illegal to unload any contaminant material from a point source into navigable water bodies without acquiring permit from EPA. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program, under the EPA, helps in controlling discharges (Environmental Protection

I propose to add the environmental justice issue of environmental discrimination into the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. To do so, I will investigate specific issues and regulation deficiencies that are negatively impacting the Great Lakes’ reserves, and develop a plan of action on your behalf. As you are aware, protecting the Great Lakes is critically important. It is not only the largest source of freshwater in the United States but in the whole world. Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin border the Great Lakes, and all of those states use it as a water source for a total of about 10 million people. Since the passing of the Clean Water Act, industries like U.S. Steel Industry have been using the loopholes found in the bill to further their profit, and as a side effect has caused damage to the water supply, disproportionately affecting people in marginalized communities. By using these loopholes, the Great Lakes are continually polluted, which causes appalling damage to the millions of people who use the water for drinking and other water-centric necessities. Also, aging infrastructure causes leaking pipes, corroding pipes that jeopardize the water systems, and failing sewage treatment plants. These infrastructure problems not only disproportionate effect marginalized communities but all communities suffer when the Great Lakes become polluted.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (P.L. 80-845, 62 Stat. 1155) of 1948 was the first major law enacted by Congress to address the problems of water pollution in the United States (n.d). Legislators created over 100 bills in an attempt to pass legislation over the previous half century, but were not successful. Industrial and urban growth caused by World War II in 1948, led to obvious, notorious pollution of the country's rivers, streams, and lakes, urging Congress to finally address the issue. Unfortunately, the act was not designed well enough to achieve the goals set out to address the issue. It did not ban pollution, only gave limited power to the federal government, and provided an extremely awkward enforcement mechanism. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not successful in preventing and reducing water pollution. Pollution continued to increase because of the federal government's inability to require any direct reduction in discharges. As a result, the quality of the nation's waters had no improvement. On the other hand, the act established a popular and political support for pollution control efforts. Congress rewrote the act in 1972 to provide more acceptable protection for the nation's waters. It also established the basic agenda for water pollution control, which was amended by Congress afterwards. Congress made changes to the act six times before rewriting it in 1972.

Environmental policy has always been an important topic in American politics. The landmark case between the state of Michigan and the Environmental Protection Agency arose the recurring question as to whether, and to what extent, agencies should account for the cost of engaging in environmental regulation and public health. This has not been the first time the Supreme Court has had to deal with such issue, in fact this has been the fifth time the court has had to intervene in a related matter. In this specific case of the state of Michigan and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Court ruled that cost considerations were very much required under certain provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency itself and sections of the Clean

The Clean Water Act designed a road map for establishing clean water laws that would protect our rivers and streams and their designated uses. To do this effectively, a permit system was created called the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Although the NPDES permit system has not fully lived up to its name by eliminating all pollution by 1985, it has been effective at reducing pollution from most sources.

There are many ways to evaluate environmental impacts on federal actions. Some of these faucets rely on regulations to guide the effectiveness of the assessment while others tend to use more subjective opinions and perceptions. Both methods are crucial for an all-inclusive environmental impact statement to create an accurate representation of the potential impacts the proposed actions and alternatives could have. Groundwater and waste are two resource evaluation methods that heavily rely on regulations as a guidepost. Resources such as aesthetics and socioeconomics however, tend to rely on the observer’s subjective perspective. As you continue to read, you will see why these statements

The environmental justice hypothesis as stated by Brown, P. is that “hazards in the physical and chemical environmental disproportionately affect those individuals and households that also face hazards in their social environment. “