Environmental Laws And Its Effects On The United States

What really caused the sudden upsurge in concern for preserving America’s environment at the beginning of the twentieth century? To what extent was this concern motivated by nostalgia for an older America, and to what extent by a desire to preserve nature and natural resources for future generations?

From 1890 to 1920, cities in the United States experienced a rapid growth that was unprecedented in years previous. This growth was caused by a number of factors and resulted in both positive and negative consequences. Such factors included, industrialization, technological advances, migration and immigration. Although American cities greatly improved by the expeditious urbanization, these factors also developed numerous challenges including pollution, sanitation problems, a need for environmental reform, political corruption, overcrowding, high crime rates and segregation.

During and since World War II the United States has produced millions of tons of toxic wastes during the manufacturing and processing of products. These hazards were often left abandoned and no one really paid attention to their effect on our environment. In the 1980s Congress established a Superfund Program. It was left for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to administer the superfund program, to find these hazardous sites, investigate and determine the worst ones, and then clean up those sites across the United States. Over 15,000 sites were identified and 1,400 were named to the National Priorities List (NPL). One of the towns was Picher Oklahoma named in the Tar Creek Superfund Site.

One of the first influences on the deliberation on Environmental Justice was The Civil Rights Movement in the United States of America. Leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. fought hard to ensure that social transformation and power be established for African Americans, especially those in the southern states as well as those in the northern inner-city parts. Activists like King altered the philosophy on Environmental Justice arguing that there was a lopsided effect that proved that environmental hazards were not accidental. What environmentalists advocated instead was that environmental dangers resulted from racial segregation that placed power plants, nuclear plants, and other potential ecological hazards in areas with a high concentration of minority and low income groups. Several activists defined this as “environmental racism.”

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.)

Environmental justice links a number of social movements—anti-racism, Aboriginals rights, and the mainstream environmental movement—and addresses the problem of environmental racism (Gosine & Teelucksignh, 2008, p. 11). The concept of environmental justice in the U.S was associated with the struggles over toxic waste sites and the call for equal treatment of all communities, radicalized or not (p. 9). It was about looking at human health rather than preserving areas deemed as “playgrounds for the rich.”

This was the first declaration by federal government identifying that it was the rights of states and local governments to be responsible for controlling air pollution. The government took the health and public welfare of Americans seriously by passing the Air Pollution Act, but ironically, the federal government was not in any form engaging in air pollution clean up or prosecuting those responsible for pollution. This act did not reduce any of the smog in the atmosphere, nor did it make it easier for states with low funding to tackle their own city’s air pollution problems. The unseen long term benefits of this act were the federal research funds implemented to conduct air pollution research which eventually structured the Clean Air Act of

The Clean Air Act was the first major environmental law in the United States to include a provision for citizen suits. Numerous state and local governments have enacted similar legislation, either implementing federal programs or filling in locally important gaps in federal

The environment, and recreational activities that are essential to the outdoors, have also been negatively impacted by this system for allocating water rights. The issue of whether or not this system is equitable towards environmental protection has been raised because environmental organizations typically do not have the same funds as other entities, such as cities and towns, oil, gas, and energy companies, and manufacturing. Furthermore, as Jones and Cech point out, “environmental concerns continue to be underrepresented in Colorado water law and policy” (p. 712). This has created a situation similar to agriculture, where environmental concerns become second thoughts to those of M&I, giving rise to environmental issues across the state. These environmental issues can have an effect on residents throughout Colorado, from anglers who enjoy healthy streams and rivers for fishing, to kayakers and rafters who need flowing rivers to recreate

The 1970’s represent a pivotal point in history that rewrote how America viewed its environmental policies- both on a policymaker and citizen scientist standpoint. As the public became more aware of environmental issues, concern about pollution, improper disposal, dwindling resources, radiation and poisoning enraptured a growing number of supporters. These supporters made it so that unlike the Progressive Era’s conservation movement (1890’s-1920’s), which was mainly elitists, this modern movement was pushed by “the common man.” It was an era that celebrated leaders such as John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Thomas Jefferson. One of those leaders in the forefront of these radical changes was Congressman Morris K.

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.

1. How could the law and public policy be used to minimize the negative impact(s) of Sample Drought Executive Order 2016? Explain, giving one example of a type of law or public policy.

I also find it morally incorrect for the state government, despite listening to the complaints of the people, to ignore the people’s cry for safe drinking water while investing interest in how hydraulic fracturing will produce capitalism for the economy. The local residents of Wyoming whose rights to safe drinking water are deprived center in on the analytical framework of Carolyn Merchant’s argument in her article, “Interpreting Environmental History.” According to Merchant, some key themes in environmental history is the use of power and justice, as well as our consciousness. For instance, in the case of the local residents in Wyoming, residents face injustice as they are being deprived of their right to safe drinking water. Not only that, but the costs to hydraulic fracturing are health hazards and water that is unfit for consumption for residents; whereas, natural gas companies and state government benefit from hydraulic fracturing because of the increased natural gas production, source of capitalism being made from these drilling activities, and thousands of jobs produced for people. And natural gas companies are conscious of how they are negligent in responding to the complaints of residents in Wyoming; even now, Encana Corporation and other natural gas companies

Environmental justice is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (epa.gov). An equal playing field is just what society needs, and this goes hand in hand with one of Carrie Chapman Catt’s greatest achievements: the nineteenth amendment. The nineteenth amendment “granted women the right to vote” (history.com), which is just one aspect of environmental

Environmentalists did get more power after the victory of DPP, as they for the first time were able to enter the state arena and took part in the policy making process. Environmentalist scholars were also given positions in the public sector, marking a step forward in the Taiwanese political history. However, the environmentalists did not see the implement of all the policies and environmental laws that they longed for. Instead, they found their previous ally now submit for the demand of better economic performance. According to Ho, this is because Taiwan had became a 'weaken state ' after the democratic institutions ' establishment due to DPP’s lack of experience and influence in the political circle. DPP did not enjoy parliamentary majority and faced many obstacles while trying to implement it’s policies as the opposing KMT still holds a considerable amount of power in the public sector. DPP’s tradition of being the opposing minority also means that it does not have the experience on actual ruling, which could be problematic at the same time. All kinds of ideas could permeate easily though a weaken state, meaning that not only the environmentalists’ but also the capitalists’ claims would have great influence in policy making. DPP was also trapped in the dilemma of whether to fulfil its promises to the environmentalists or to go for the pro-economic standing to make itself a more 'electable ' party to the general public. These would mark the new resistance Taiwanese