Environmental Response, Compensation, And Liability Act

The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972 (EPA). This act is so important because it helped make it illegal, without a permit, to dump pollutants in navigable water. industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. (EPA) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, is an act that helps clean up hazardous waste. . The act was passed with a budget of 1.6 billion dollars to be used to clean up the hazardous waste from spills or hazardous waste sites (gale). The support for the fund came from a tax that was put on chemical feedstock producers. CERCLA is different from most environmental laws because it deals with past problems rather than trying to prevent future pollution, and because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in addition to acting as a regulatory agency, must clean up sites itself. (Gale) Under the law, the EPA determines the most dangerous hazardous waste sites, based on characteristics like toxicity of wastes and risk of human exposure, and places them on the National Priorities

The increased diffused surface run off may flow into a natural watercourse or even over landowner’s property as long as the increase in diffused surface water flow does not harm the neighboring watercourses or lands (Dellapenna 306). Also added to the natural flow rule is the good husbandry exception (Dellapenna 305). The good husbandry exception gained acceptance slower than the acceleration exception due to its grand nature (Dellapenna 307). The good husbandry rule permitted landowners to add quatinties of water to drain or repel from negihbors land as long as the quanties were considered “good husbandry” of the soil (Dellapenna 307). This exception created then need to define what was amount of diffused water run off was “reasonable” to use, which led into the creation of the reasonable use rule (Dellapenna 307).

Justin Worland reports in TIME, since 2010, 3,300 incidents of leaks and ruptures have been reported on oil pipelines and even the smallest spill could damage the tribes water supply. This can be very controversial, but with over 10,000 Native Americans living on the Standing Rock Reservation, many lives may be affected. In fact, the pipeline would travel directly under the Missouri River which is the tribes primary drinking water source. Also, Native Americans received specific rights they have obtained since 1898. The Lakota tribe signed the Fort Laramie Treaty in 1898 that protects hunting, fishing and water rights in the surrounding area(Ward). As a result of signing this treaty, officials cannot threaten their water by installing a pipeline. Furthermore, the 1972 Clean Water Act declares it is unlawful to discharge any pollutant from an identifiable source into bodies of water without a permit(Brodwin). The problem found within the pipeline is that is causes potential harm to drinking water. Therefore, the significance of Native Americans relying on this drinking water overpowers the installation of the Dakota Access

the pipeline is close to a river. The river is the only source of water that the Standing Rock Sioux

In contrast, President Ronald Reagan’s Administration utilized the 404(c) process on nine separate occasions, including one instance where the EPA preemptively used it in the Florida Everglades, as the law clearly states that it can, to veto a project before a permit had been filed. The notion that the EPA has engaged in “unprecedented” actions in its initiation of the 404(c) process in Bristol Bay before Pebble has filed an application for a mine permit, is simply not true. In addition, since 1980 Republican Administrations have initiated the 404(c) process on 11 occasions, while Democratic Administrations have initiated the process just three times.

On June 21, 2016, in State of Wyoming v. United States Dept. of the Interior, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled on challenges to the “Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) issuance of regulations applying to hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands.” The District of Wyoming held that the “Fracking Rule” issued by the BLM was not promulgated with the proper authority based on the unrelated Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA).

If the pipeline is completed and damage occurs to the water supply of those living in the area of the instillation, those living in the area will be forced to change their primary source of water. A water supply that is contaminated by waste from the oil pipeline will impact tribe’s occupations of bathing, showering, meal preparation, and cleanup. These activities fall under the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) categories of washing oneself, drinking, and preparing meals, and those who are no longer able to safely participate in these activities would

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a pipeline that will carry crude oil from Stanley, North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois crossing under the Mississippi river and Lake Oahe. Who has been disputing against whom, why, and other information about the building of the pipeline and the location of it have been on the news recently. This paper will examine the legality of building the pipeline, it crossing under major water sources, and taking into account tribal opinion/public opinion when constructing something that could harm their land/resources.

against an EPA compliance order until the case was brought to the US district court first, then

There are three main federal statutes that can be applied to this situation. The statutes are: 1)

The main concern was that during rain storms oil and water would overflow into the sewage drains. In 1973 representative of Bureau of Water Pollution Control inspected the site and had concerns of the oil lakes around the site. Overall, the refinery was going back and forth with numerous inspectors who had concerns and due to not produce results of a cleaner area. They were eventually also fined for discharging their wastes into a nearby lagoon which eventually harmed nearby waterways during raining seasons. The USEPA reported that the company should be imposed for criminal and civil penalties. Robert Mahler was eventually issued to ensure he would force a cleanup of the

In July 2016, the Army Corps of Engineers determined that the Dakota Access Pipeline presented no significant environmental risks and could go forward as planned by its developers. However, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe whose lands the pipeline would cross, as well as other indigenous groups, and allies including scientists, have urged the Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider this judgment. Perhaps due to this pressure, the Army Corps of Engineers has since delayed the easement, to the resistance of Energy Transfers Partners (ETP), who say they will build anyway, even without the permit (Heavey). While this struggle over legal rights as well as economic, environmental, and health concerns continues, we should understand why the Army Corps

In this case the plaintiff, CBD, litigated CDFW on the following principles of CEQA: rules governing PEIRs, baseline setting, deferral of mitigation and alternative analysis. In regards to PEIRs it is defined by CEQA as an “EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related [among other possibilities] … [a]s individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways” (CEQA Guidelines, 15168, subd. (a)(4).) In this regards both courts concluded that the hatchery and stocking enterprise was such a project.

Where this agreement usually ends, however, is with the question of quality control refining processes from my viewpoint. Anotherwords, what control measures are enforced to ensure all contaminants are entirely removed to guarantee a high level of quality assurance and security of the petroleum sectors within the nation’s infrastructures? Are there residual contaminants affecting the quality of fuel supplied to the nation’s energy consumers? From a preceding viewpoint, it can be related to the Colorado Floods that occurred in September 2013. Even the prevailing thought of hazardous waste introduced to the Colorado geographical landscape does not eliminate the second and third order affects imposed on the nation’s petroleum pipeline infrastructure by way of corrosion, introducing chemicals into the pipeline arteries through small cracks that may extend beyond Colorado, an implication that cannot be ruled out. Water contamination prevention-or across the board programs-from the negative effect of hydraulic fracturing should be an expectation from petroleum energy producers. Moreover, it reminds us of an infrastructure security vulnerability, which is not often specified, when hydraulic fracturing is correlated to the role water functions through the conventional petroleum refining process, along with vast arrays of petroleum pipelines that exist across the nation’s geographical landscapes. These concerns should be brought

In this case, it is possible that Demon could be liable for violating the Clean Water Act. Although Demon had a NPDES permit, there are