Clean Water Act Research Paper

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.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to establish the concentrations of contaminants that are permitted in public drinking-water systems. A public water system is defined by EPA as a “system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals” (63 Fed. Reg. 41940 [1998]). Section 1412 of the act, as amended in 1986, requires EPA to publish maximum-contaminant-level goals (MCLGs) and promulgate national primary drinking-water regulations (maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]) for contaminants in drinking water that might cause

The general population of the State of Georgia are reliant upon the waterways, streams, lakes, and subsurface waters for open and private water supply, and agrarian, modern, and recreational employments. The Georgia Water Quality Control Act (WQCA) (O.C.G.A. § 12-5-2) represents the effects on the water amount and quality inside the State of Georgia. The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is charged to build up and keep up the quality and amount of Georgia's water assets (O.C.G.A § 12-5-21(b)). It is Georgia's arrangement that water assets be used judiciously for the most extreme advantage of the general population, keeping in mind the end goal to reestablish and keep up a sensible level of

“Access to safe water is a fundamental human need and, therefore, a basic human right. Contaminated water jeopardizes both the physical and social health of all people. It is an affront to human dignity.” — Kofi Annan, prior United Nations Secretary-General

The EPA’s interpretation and expansion of the term “navigable waters” has created great controversy. The Environmental Protection Agency along with the United States Army Corps of Engineers have broadened the definition of “navigable waters”

New York, Connecticut, and EPA along with the federal Clean Water Act are ensuring enforcement to see a healthier Sound. The provisions of the federal Clean Water Act provide a vehicle for ensuring that nitrogen reduction targets are legally enforceable. A section of the Act (303(d)) requires the identification of a Total Maximum Daily Load for pollutants that will result in the accomplishment of water quality standards. Once a Total Maximum Daily Load has been established, the act calls for reductions to be allocated to sources so that the

Anacostia Riverkeeper, 2015). Anacostia Riverkeeper challenged the permit in the Montgomery County Circuit Court in 2013. The Court held that the permit did not comply with state water quality standards and effluent limitations under section 303(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972. The court also held that the best management practices were too vague and that the permit did not provide a clear basis regarding how compliance with state water quality standards would be measured (Edwards, 2015). When the MDE appealed the case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (CSA) agreed with MDE that the permit does not require a permittee to meet state water quality standards due to 1987 amendments to the CWA that resulted in a different standard for municipal storm water permits than industrial storm water (Maryland Department of the Environment v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, 2015). While the CSA agreed with the MDE on technical terms, the CSA found that the permit did not meet the requirements of the CWA and state law because it did not entail public notices or specific and detailed information that the public could understand and comment on, and that the permit did not contain specifics on measuring compliance on two of the most important factors that the permit addresses

In January of 2015, Flint was found to be in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act after disinfection byproducts were detected at alarming rates (NPR, 2016). Water was somehow still deemed safe for consumption, as the city was very passive in its advisories. Although E. coli, coliform bacteria, and disinfection byproducts were very serious and harmful substances found in the water supply, they would not be the main issue.

Furthermore, the Shore Protection Act is applicable to the transportation of municipal and commercial waste in coastal waters aiming to minimize debris from being deposited into coastal waters from inadequate waste handling procedures by waste transporting vessels (Laws That Protect). The Center for Biodiversity had petitioned the EPA to begin regulating plastics as a pollutant under The Clean Water Act- a crucial first step in reducing the amount of plastic. The Clean Water Act is the nation's strongest law protecting water quality. Recognition of plastic pollution under the clean water act enables states to develop water-quality standards to finally begin curbing the amount of plastic dumped in the oceans.

The Clean Water Act is an example of the law that was enacted to protect water from being polluted by the companies that are located closed to bodies of water. Companies are required to take care of the environment in which they coexist with as per the Clean Water Act to protect against pollution. Oil companies are required to acquire a license before they start a new offshore well. The Act serves as a form of protection for natural resources and the minimization of pollution. The law also ensures that companies take part in the protection of the

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.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in which the US governs water pollution. The Act states the objectives of eliminating releases of high amounts of toxic substances into water. The CWA made it unlawful to dump toxic materials into navigable, waters unless given a permit. The permit is given through the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The purpose of The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is to regulate point sources that flow into bodies of water. The Clean Water Act has been changed over the years because of

The Clean Water Act (CWA) founds the elementary structure for regulating releases of contaminants into the water bodies of the US and also for surface waters it regulates quality standards. The origin of the CWA was passed in 1948 and was named the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, then the Act was suggestively reorganized and prolonged in 1972. as "Clean Water Act" this became the Act 's communal name after amendments in 1972.Further down to CWA, EPA has applied other pollution control agendas such as for industry, the setting wastewater standards. We similarly have set some water quality standards for all pollutants in surface waters.

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

There primary function of Clean Water Act is to devise the fundamental structure to control expulsion of polluted material into the U.S waters and implementing quality principles for surface water. In the light of this Act, several pollution control programs have been implemented by Environmental Protection Agency comprising developing standards against water wastage for manufacturing firms (Stern & Kollikkathara, 2008). It has also defined principles interrelated to quality of water for all pollutants in surface water. Clean Water Act states, it’s illegal to dispose off any contaminant from any point source into negotiable water without any legal authorization.