Stormwater Management Case Study

The efforts in restoring the Chesapeake Bay also has importance on economic value. The Chesapeake bay is a commercial and recreational resource for more than 15 million people who live in and near its watershed (drainage basin).” (Atkins & Anderson, 2003). According to the Chesapeake Bay foundation, also known as the CBF; in 2004, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science conducted an study estimated that the Chesapeake Bay contributed $1.23 billion in sales, $717 million in income, and nearly more than 13,000 jobs in Virginia from recreational and commercial fishing

An issue that was present in few specific cities in Maryland have now expanded throughout the entire state. The Chesapeake Bay, a large estuary that has an extremely complex ecosystem that is vital to important habitats and food webs in this area. The Chesapeake bay is arguably one of the most productive environments in the United States. Over the years, this bay has been in a decline of wellness. Pollution, contaminants, and many other factors are destroying the overall well being of these waters, and completely messing up the important ecosystem that has been built there. Although there is an extreme amount of Marylanders fighting for the restoration of the Chesapeake, there are also who are not.

Television commercials, print ads, and billboards in the Washington, DC, area are asking residents to connect two things many might find unrelated: lawn care and seafood. In one commercial, a man stuffs a big plateful of grass in his mouth after a voice-over says, “Spring rains carry excess lawn fertilizers through our sewers and rivers and into the Chesapeake Bay, where the blue crab harvest has been extremely low. So skip the fertilizer until fall, because once they’re gone, what’s left to enjoy?”(Environment, p. 7)

McEwen and Weintraub both state evidence on the information on their articles. They both give support which makes me believe them both. In McEwen’s article “River Plan Too Fishy for my Taste Buds” he states that their is to many problems with legislation and their is no funding, but at the same time everyone els wants to restore the river. In other hand Weintaub in his article “River Restoration Project Offers a Sprinkiling of Hope” he is all for it and he wants the changes.

Those testifying against NEPA focused on costly and lengthy reviews. While they are not wrong in identifying these inefficiencies, they fail to mention the reasoning behind these delays and the pros outweighing the cons. An important reason behind delays was addressed in the hearing as “lack of staff with responsibility for NEPA implementation and lack of training” (House Committee on Natural Resources 2017). NEPA improvements, therefore, can consist of requiring NEPA training for employees with environmental planning interest and hiring more staff with prior education and experience in NEPA implementation. It is also important to recognize that while delays can come from lengthy public comment periods, sufficient public comment periods lead to a thorough analysis (House Committee on Natural Resources

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.)

The issue that has to do with this bill is the environment. This bill from 2015 says that water and air pollution is harmful to the Florida atmosphere. The bill says the “public policy of this to conserve waters,” and that “air pollution control programs” are now considered necessities in Florida.

Yet, humans have limited control on natural events, so this only reinforces the importance of managing water wisely. Recently California’s government has begun to focus more on sustaining and restoring the water supply. Dale Kasler (2016) articulates in his article some of the steps they have decided to make to solve this serious issue. The government has made the following investments: “$415 million for watershed restoration and other environmental aid for Lake Tahoe; up to $335 million for two proposed reservoirs in California, including the Sites reservoir north of Sacramento; $880 million for flood-control projects on the American and Sacramento rivers in Sacramento; and $780 million for flood-control projects in West Sacramento” (para. 10). This could be the first step to restoring the water to California. But these

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 Jan. 2011, the EPA decided to veto the dumping of waste from the Spruce No. 1 Mine. But the agency’s efforts have so far been rebuffed by the courts as an overreach: Under the weird legal regime that governs mining, it’s the Army Corps of Engineers, not the EPA, which has the ultimate say-so over those permits. In 2012, the D.C. district court ruled that EPA lacked authority to veto the permit after the Corps had issued it. However, in fact EPA's decision is based on evidence from scientific research on serious environmental harm from mining. In May 2013, a coalition of Appalachian and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to set a numeric water quality standard under the Clean Water Act to protect streams from pollution caused by mountaintop removal mining . They claimed that “State politics and industry pressure have so far failed to end this pollution without such a standard and more and more streams and communities who rely on those waters are left vulnerable. We need EPA to act now.” The EPA’s authority over the Clean Water Act in respect to Spruce Mine No. 1 was finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in March 2014.

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 new total maximum daily limit of nitrogen, phosphorus, and total dissolved solids would force WVSA to upgrade to a 25-million-dollar system. Instead of doing the expensive upgrade, the WSVA decided to fix the problems in house by using biological nitrate removal. The biological nitrate removal cost WSVA 400 thousand dollars which was paid by fundraising. Any other upgrades or advances to the biological removal would be paid by fundraising, complete funds from the WSVA, or the state would give WSVA half of the money while WSVA would pay the

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta supplies almost two-thirds of the state with water. Many plants and animals live in the Delta. One of them is a tiny three-inch fish called the Delta smelt. It is due to the endangerment of this fish that the pumps that supply many of the farmlands in the state with water to grow crops were shut off. The fish were getting caught in the pumps. This caused the environmentalists to file a suit to get the pumps shut off. When the suit was won it was hard blow to the farmers. Having to worry about getting enough rain every year is enough of a burden to them. Now the water they need to grow crops was shut off for a fish. Humanity is more important than a tiny fish.

This policy memo is addressed to Congressman David Joyce who represents the 14th District of Ohio. Congressman Joyce is a Republican who could be considered a moderate conservative on an ideological scale, meaning that he is about halfway between moderate and far-leaning right (Rep. David Joyce, 2016). Issues that Joyce works toward are the economy and jobs, which is his number one priority, and is also against regulations and taxes. Joyce is heavily involved in energy with a focus on supporting the coal, wind, and natural gas industries, in addition he is against policies that may burden small businesses. The Great Lakes and environment are a priority for Joyce as he wants to protect the Great Lakes, but mainly for economic purposes. Joyce has sponsored three bills that work to protect and/or restore the Great Lakes. He has not been vocal in regards to whether or not he believes in climate change, although his stance toward coal and natural gas would suggest that he may not, although this may be solely to protect Ohioan jobs. Additional issues that he works toward are defense & national security, health care, the national debt, tax reform, veterans, and seniors (Issues & Legislation, 2016).

This book was written in 1962, and since then the problem of polluted water has only increased. It was clear to me that Carson was extremely concerned with environmental problems that were happening in that time period, and she wanted to let people know that it needed to end soon, or else the problem will only get worse. In my opinion, although I was not around in the 1960’s, things have gotten worse since then. Not only are individuals still using household pesticides to kill unwanted insects, but now larger industries are adding to the pesticides in the water by dumping other chemicals and toxins in it. Since the population is constantly increasing, so are towns and industries which lead to an increase of pollutants, toxins, and wastes. I have read that the amount of wastes that are trying to be filtered through pipes is more then those pipes can handle, therefore