Wild Fish Conservancy Vs. United States Environmental Protection Agency

The case of Union Electric Company v. EPA began on January 21, 1976 and ended on June 25, 1976. The case was brought to the court by the Union Electric Company after they had failed to meet the implications of the Clean Air Act (CAA) despite their attempt to revise their SO2 emissions. The Union County Electric company was supposed to undergo a review of Missouri’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), but did not. The Union County Electric Company had reduced their SO2 emissions to the point where they were adequate on a county and state level; however, their emissions violated Missouri’s SIP.

with the tribes. The tribes of Washington had ceded their land to the United States but had reserved the right to fish as they always had (pictured), including fishing at their traditional locations that were off the designated reservations. After a long trial, the decision of federal judge George Hugo Boldt held that the tribes were entitled to half the fish harvest each year. In 1975 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Boldt's ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. After the state refused to enforce the court order, Boldt ordered the Coast Guard to enforce his rulings. In a later case,

Throughout the early history of fishing there has been little to no fishing regulations on the 60,000 lakes of Minnesota. Many species have failed to survive the horrors of spearing while in spawning season, such as the sturgeon. Additionally, some species cannot recover on their own and are regularly monitored and stock by the department of natural resources. One species, lake trout, is so fragile, the only lake they are not stocked in is Lake Superior. The history of regulations in Minnesota shows the page lengths getting longer each year, but are the regulations protecting just the fish, or are the regulations protecting the ecosystem as a whole?

The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research.

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.

There are numerous regulations in place to protect the Delta Smelt. These regulations basically give the state government and the environmentalists the power to do whatever they see fit to protect the Delta Smelt. And a large portion of what they feel needs to be done comes down to where the water will go. The biggest law they use to support their policies is the Endangered Species Act, under which the Delta Smelt have protected status. They use the clout from these laws to do things like, pump 1.4 trillion gallons of water from the Delta out into the San Francisco Bay for reproductive proposes for the Delta Smelt. While they have put these laws in place and used them to their fullest extent, it is not working. All this trouble has not come even close to saving, or even protecting, the Delta Smelt. Biologists recently caught the lowest number of Delta Smelt ever recorded in a count. They caught six. Not even five years ago, they were catching hundreds in one netting. While the actual population size isn’t known, it is safe to assume the Delta Smelt are on the verge of extinction, and that’s with over-barring, unconstitutional restrictions to prevent exactly this outcome.

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.

Recently, a contractor working for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unintentionally released 3 million gallons of toxic mine waste into the Animas River in the Mountain West state of Colorado. Right now, people in the US are debating the efficacy of the EPA (the right-wing is using the spill as anti-government propaganda) and the noxious aftermath the spill will undoubtedly have on local economies, communities and ecosystems.

In the case of Boaters Inc. vs. City Government, it is important to note that both parties have an obligation to conduct research ethically and in a manner that it ensures the safety and well-being of all parties involved. In simpler terms, authors Donald Cooper and Pamela Schindler encourage “responsible research” which requires researchers to identify the potential ethical dilemmas to mitigate any future roadblocks that could potentially jeopardize the planning and developmental phases of research. In addition, the authors also state that to accomplish ethical research a level of personal integrity must be applied from the personnel conducting the research (Cooper, Schindler, 2014). These ethical practices are also designed to aid in

Massachusetts and some other states petitioned the EPA (Environmental protection Agency) requesting them to control radiation of carbon dioxide and supplementary gases that give away to global warming from motor vehicles. MA wanted to control this greenhouse effect by obtaining the Clean Air Act (CAA). This act indicates that congress must monitor any air pollutant that can cause crisis to public health and welfare. EPA rejected the petition, justifying that the CAA does not have the power to tell the EPA to control the greenhouse gas radiation. Even if it did, EPA argued that they had the power to adjourn a decision until more research could be done on the damage and climate change. MA applied the declination of the petition to the

Scenario: In the community of Campbell River, British Columbia (the salmon capital of the world), concerns have been raised with regards to the issue of overfishing. Some members of the community do not believe the fishing industry should continue; however, they might not fully understand the political/economic/environmental implications of this decision upon others in the community. As a result, the mayor of Campbell River has decided to hold a town hall to listen to the various viewpoints of those affected by the fishing industry. They have invited the BC Supreme Court to hold a ruling to decide whether or not salmon fishing will continue among the coastal provinces.

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.

The citizen suite in regards to environmental acts, regulations and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is an essential tool in regulating impacts on the environment, public health, and the health of the wildlife. If used properly it can be an essential weapon for the public to keep companies, organizations, individuals, and even federal agencies in check. Citizen suits should not be taking lightly though, as it takes a great deal of time, research, and patience in trying to win a citizen suit case.

It is evident the scope of the Clean Water Act needs to be clarified, because the term “navigable waters” is used in a number of provisions of the CWA including sections; 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, 404 permit program, 311 oil spill prevention and response program, 303 total maximum daily load programs (TMDL), 401 state water quality certification process, all of which impact state and local governments (Clean Water Rule, 2015, p.25).