Water Pollution Act ( Clean Water Act )

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

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.)

“For many of us, clean water is so plentiful and readily available that we are rarely, if ever, pause to consider what life would be like without it,” said Marcus Samuelsson. According to the Des Moines Register, “The federal Environmental Protection Agency is adding $12.3 million to a loan fund that will help pay for drinking water systems or improve efficiency.” There are obvious water quality issues in Iowa, and people around the state including farmers and the governor are trying to help.

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 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 problem topic being analyzed is the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 PL 114-114. The law discusses, in detail about, amending Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331). It adds on to that law by putting in the following into an act, “To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the manufacture and introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of rinse-off cosmetics containing intentionally-added plastic microbeads.” Microbeads are “any solid plastic particle that is less than 5 millimeters in size.” The reason behind banning the microbeads in “rinse-off cosmetics” is due to the fact that they are doing more harm than good, especially to the environment and our water across the U.S. The beads are continually adding plastic to the oceans causing toxins and problems for the marine environment. Microbeads are not only impacting the oceans, but the groups and people all over the world.

On March 4, 2015, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 was introduced to the United States House of Representatives. Sponsored by Democratic Representative of New Jersey Frank Pallone, the bill called to amend “the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ban rinse-off cosmetics that contain synthetic plastic microbeads beginning on January 1, 2018” (congress.gov, H.R. 1321). The bill was then passed with amendments to it in the House in December, with Senate passing it a week later by unanimous consent. The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 is unlike a lot of bills that have attempted to pass through the House and the Senate because it did not face the all-too-common gridlock that one can expect nowadays from the United States Congress. Pallone said to the New York Times that although he was surprised by the quick success of the bill, it passed simply because it had a lot of support in the House and the Senate and did not have much opposition (New York Times).

The inception of U.S. Environmental policy most notably began under the Presidency of Richard Nixon; Nixon oversaw the passage of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the creation of the Environmental Policy Act (EPA). The Clean Water Act of 1972, in particular, enacted stringent laws to prevent pollutants from entering navigable waters, outlawing open sewers from dumping crud into a local stream and the law also protects land that filters and purifies water as it flows by. The Landmark law passed in 1972, however, has not impeded the pending water crisis facing the U.S. today. The United States must take immediate measures in order to combat the problem; given that the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence now ranks water scarcity as a major threat to national security; right next to Terrorism (Sullivan). The United States should reform the Clean Water Act of 1972 to look for any deficiencies in the law.

Imagine an Earth devoid of clean rivers with no inland marine life or readily available freshwater. This situation may arise if humanity does not volunteer to end its polluting tendencies. Initially, each individual should focus on taking steps towards decontaminating his or her nearest water body. For those living in Delaware, this is the Delaware River, which is in need of drastic reform. “The Delaware River . . . is the fifth most-polluted river in the country, according to a report released . . . by Environment New Jersey” (Augenstein). However, this obstacle did not arise spontaneously. A recognized problem by the early eighteenth century, Delaware River pollution remained a serious issue for the next 300 years and mostly stemmed from rapid population growth and booming industrial activities (“Delaware River Water Quality”). As the years progressed, Delawareans continuously disregarded the Delaware River, and it is now immensely besmirched as a result of accumulating neglect for the river. Because of this, Delaware waters continued to befoul past the threshold of safety. Delaware waterways are currently unsafe for commercial use due to the presence of pollutants and parasites like Giardia and Cryptosporidium in the river that can cause significant health problems, especially in individuals with weakened immune systems (“Delaware”). The polluted Delaware River, sullied by companies despite the Clean Water Act, may cause a decline in Delaware’s’ marine life, human

The St. Johns River is suffering from a significant environmental disaster because of toxic substances from municipal and industrial wastewater, fertilizer runoff, failing septic tanks, and stormwater. Consequently, over 55% of the river miles, 80.4% of acres of large water bodies, 59.4 % of estuaries, and 31.4% of coastline miles do not meet water quality standards in Florida (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 119). For that matter, studying those pollution problems that the river faces is vital since one can use this information to salvage the natural resource which is at the brink of destruction.

This spring, record breaking floodwaters along the Mississippi River caused massive damage in nine states, totaling over $25 billion dollars in damage (Watts, 2011). In most areas the floodwaters have receded, however there is concern that even a little rain could cause more flooding due to the already saturated land. As cities and towns are beginning the restoration process, one thing caused by the flooding waters cannot be restored. Pollutants’ such as nitrogen from fertilizer, due to this area being primarily composed of farming land, is making its way toward the Gulf of Mexico. Every year pollutants traveling in the Mississippi River enter the Gulf and contribute to the Coastal Dead Zone; however, this year the Dead Zone in the Gulf

Information that was used to develop my conclusions were relative to the history of Clearwater River such as the average normal discharge of 40,000cfs, the fact that the river can accommodate 55,000cfs before flooding will occur, and that with every increase of 2600cfs the river rises one foot. For example, this information helped to determine that four of the thirteen noted Peak Flood Discharges listed on the worksheet were not at flood stage as the river is able to accommodate discharges less than 55,000cfs. However, nine of the thirteen Peak Flood Discharges listed on the worksheet were at flood stage or drastically above; with the maximum rise of 17.77 feet above and a discharge rate of 101,200cfs. The average discharge rate of the top three noted floods per information on the Stream Gauge Data of Peak Flow Discharges is 93,613cfs, which is resourceful later in determining the extrapolated 75-year flood.

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.

Water is a critical source that is utilized by most living things on Earth to support it ways of live. The usage of water ranges from basic household needs to agricultural purposes. Water is one of the resources on the Earth that is becoming more and more scarce and the water available for usage is being further contaminated by pollution causing sickness and death.(World Health Organization).Countries are experiencing droughts affecting the water supply needed to maintain irrigation, thermoelectric power, and public supply. The definition of water pollution is the result of when too many toxic materials are present, in which negatively impact the water to be unsafe for its intended purpose, which may be drinking to industrial processes