Water Pollution Control Act

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 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).

All the controversy about the lead problems in Flint, Michigan has stirred up questions across the country. Every day there are several news stories about cities across the country discussing the lead issue and how they meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. While the average person may feel comforted by these news stories, it doesn’t mean that every home served by the water supply has lead below the EPA’s recommended action level. It’s the job of water treatment professionals to educate those served by municipal water about the regulations surrounding lead and copper and what those consumers can do to protect themselves further.

The Senate Committee on Public Works recognized the ever-growing environmental issues and released House report No. 1829 stating, “Pollution of our water resources by domestic and industrial wastes has become an increasingly serious problem... Polluted waters menace the public health, destroy fish and game life, and rob us of other benefits of our natural resources.” Accompanied by support from President Harry S. Truman, although not without dispute, the FWPCA of 1948 was passed by Congress (Berry 1969). Disagreement was had over whether water pollution was an issue to be dealt with by the state or the federal government. An issue that remains today. The vision of a substantially enforced legislation diminished into a much more feeble bill where water pollution was viewed as a state or local problem and the Federal government only intervened when invited to settle interstate water conflicts (Berry

In the article, “Water Pollution: A Surefire Story in Your Community,” from IRE Journal, Robert Mcclure, investigates waterways that were supposedly “cleaned up” by the federal government. Factories and large businesses are the main contributors to water pollution in seas and oceans. The Clean Water Act was supposed to help clean oceans and ocean fronts from pollution and polluters, but the act was never initiated. Mcclure mentions that “The result today: Beaches, streams, and bays across the country are not being protected enough for people to safely swim and fish there” (1). He has performed many studies, starting with a Statewide look of investigation of water pollution. In his research, he revealed, “all the factories, sewage treatment plants and other

“Water is life's mater and matrix, mother, and medium. There is no life without water.” This means that if we do not take good care of this water since it is so polluted there will be no water left for us. So the Government of Minnesota (CWD) should pass a law so the water in Minnesota is filtered better and so that it will be cleaner so everyone is able to drink it. There are three ways to do this and they are Hazardous waste treatment, Planting vegetation along bodies of water, to filter sediment and Filtering Bacteria so if they are ingested by humans it will not kill them.

on asserted that he was “not a crook. I’ve earned everything I got.” With the

There should be more strict laws for pollution in water.first, It is bad for the animals and for humans too. Next, it is bad for the environment and everything around it. Finally, it could cause problems for the government

The Rio Grande River is currently on the 303(d) list of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The lower Sub-Basin from International Falcon Reservoir downstream to the Gulf of Mexico is lacking infrastructure to adequately handle the environmental consequences of human and industrial waste generation and disposal on the U. S side in locations such as Harlingen, TX. The Rio Grande is mostly affected by the high volumes of dissolved solids, such as salinity and bacteria. The U.S is working to introduce a common set of standards that can be agreed on by both countries.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was created in response the rapid loss of clean water. The government wanted to restore and preserve the water, as much of it was no longer useable for consumption or recreational use. A lot of this was due to agricultural runoff which lead to a surplus of phosphorus and nitrogen in many waters. (Tim Martins)

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.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) define the (MCLG) as a minimum level of a contaminant or pollutant concentration in the drinking water below which there is no harmful effect or expected risk to human health. Also, (MCLG) is non-enforceable public health goal. As for (MCL) is the maximum level of a contaminant or pollutant concentration that is permissible in the drinking water. Also, (MCL) is enforceable standard that is set as close to the (MCLG) as possible, by using the best available treatment technology (to ensure control of a contaminant) and taking cost into the consideration. It is good to know, that the contaminant concentration will contain all inorganic substance, organic substance, and microorganism.

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