The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the main federal law in the United States that regulates water pollution. The goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of state waters by preventing point and non-point pollution sources, providing assistance to public-owned maintenance work for improved wastewater treatment, and maintaining wetland integrity. This is one of the first and most influential modern environmental laws in the United States. Like many other US federal environmental laws, this law is administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in coordination with the state government. The implementation rules are codified at 40 C.F.R. Subdivisions D, N, and O (Sections 100-140, 401-471, and 501-503).
Technically, the legal name is the Water Federal Pollution Control Act . The first FWPCA was enacted in 1948, but took the modern form when it was completely rewritten in 1972 in an act entitled Federal Water Pollution Control Amendment Act of 1972 . Major changes were then introduced through amendment laws including the Clean Air Act of 1977 and Water Quality Act of 1987.
The Clean Water Law does not directly address groundwater pollution. The groundwater protection provisions are included in the Safe Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Superfund action.
Video Clean Water Act
​​â € <â €
Water pollution health implications
Contamination of drinking water supplies can not only occur in water sources but also in distribution systems. Water pollution sources include natural chemicals and minerals (arsenic, radon, uranium), local land-use practices (fertilizers, pesticides, concentrated feed operations), manufacturing processes, and waste disposal or wastewater discharges. Some examples of health implications of water contamination are gastrointestinal disease, reproductive problems, and neurological disorders. Infants, young children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people whose immune systems are disrupted by AIDS, chemotherapy, or transplant medications may be particularly susceptible to diseases of some contaminants.
Gastrointestinal disease
Gastrointestinal disturbances include conditions such as constipation, irritable bowel syndrome, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, perianal abscesses, anal fistulas, perianal infections, diverticular disease, colitis, colon polyps and cancer. In general, children and the elderly are at greatest risk for gastrointestinal disease. In a study investigating the relationship between drinking water quality and gastrointestinal disease in elderly Philadelphia, scientists found water quality 9 to 11 days before the visit was negatively associated with hospital admissions for gastrointestinal disease, with an increased interquartile range in turbidity attributed to an increase of 9 %). This relationship is stronger in those over the age of 75 than in the 65-74 population. This example is a small reflection of the population of the United States who remain at risk of waterborne gastrointestinal diseases under current water treatment practices.
Reproductive issues
Reproductive problems refer to any disease of the reproductive system. New research by Brunel University and the University of Exeter strengthens the relationship between water pollution and increased male fertility problems. The study identified a group of chemicals that act as anti-androgens in contaminated water, which inhibits the function of male hormones, testosterone, reducing male fertility.
Neurological disorders
Neurological disorders are brain diseases, spinal cord and nerves connecting them. A new study of more than 700 people in California's Central Valley found that those who may consume contaminated private well water had higher rates of Parkinson's. The risk is 90 percent higher for those who have a private well near a field that is sprayed with a widely used insecticide. Unlike water supplies in big cities, private wells are largely unregulated and are not monitored for contaminants. Many of them are in shallow depths of less than 20 meters, and some plant chemicals used to kill pests and weeds can flow into the groundwater. Therefore, private wells tend to contain pesticides, which can attack the developing brain (womb or baby), leading to later neurological diseases. A study led by UCLA epidemiologist professor Beate Ritz showed that "people with Parkinson's are more likely to have consumed private well water, and have consumed an average of 4.3 years longer than those without disease."
Maps Clean Water Act
The protected waters
All "significant nexus" waters to "navigable waters" are covered by the CWA; however, the phrase "nexus significant" remains open to considerable legal interpretation and controversy. The 1972 law often uses the term "navigable water" but also defines the term as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial sea." Some regulations that interpret the law of 1972 have included water features such as intermittent streams, playa lakes, grass holes, slough, and wetlands as "waters of the United States." In 2006, at Rapanos v. United States of America , a number of US Supreme Courts have stated that the term "waters of the United States" "covers only those classified as permanent, standing or continuously flowing from bodies of water" form geographical features'... oceans, rivers, [and] lakes. '"
Pollution control strategy
Source point
CWA introduced the National Pollution Debit Removal System (NPDES), which is a permit system for regulating pollution sources. Source points include:
- industrial facilities (including manufacturing, mining, shipping activities, oil and gas extraction and service industries).
- municipalities (especially waste treatment plants) and other government facilities (such as military bases), and
- some agricultural facilities, such as animal feeding places.
The point source may not release pollutants to surface water without the permission of the National Pollution Debt Removal System (NPDES). The system is managed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in partnership with a state environmental agency. The EPA has authorized 46 countries to issue permits directly to the discharge facility. CWA also allows tribes to issue permits, but no tribes are allowed by the EPA. In the remaining states and territories, permission is issued by the EPA regional office. (See Titles III and IV.)
In previous legislation, Congress has authorized states to develop water quality standards, which would limit the disposal of facilities based on the characteristics of each water body. However, they must be developed only for interstate waters, and the science to support the process (ie data, methodology) is at an early stage of development. The system is ineffective, and there is no permitting system in place to enforce the requirements. At CWA 1972, Congress added a licensing system and requirements for technology-based effluent limitations.
Technology-based standards
CWA 1972 created new requirements for technology-based standards for point source disposal. The EPA develops standards for release categories, based on pollution control technology performance regardless of the condition of the particular receiving water body. The purpose of Congress is to create a "playing field level" by setting basic national debit standards for all facilities in the category, using "The Best Available Technology." The standard becomes the minimum regulatory requirement in the permit. If national standards are not sufficient to protect in certain locations, then water quality standards may be used.
Water quality standards
The 1972 acting authority continues to use a water-based quality approach, but coordinates with technology-based standards. After the application of technology-based standards for permits, if water quality is still disrupted for a particular water body, then the licensing agency (state or EPA) may add water quality-based restrictions to the permit. Additional limitations should be stricter than technology-based limitations and will require a permittee to install additional controls. Water quality standards consist of four basic elements: 1) Designated use; 2) Water quality criteria; 3) Antidegradation policy and 4) General policy.
The specified usage
According to water quality standard regulations, federally recognized tribes/countries and states are required to determine appropriate water use. The identification of appropriate water use considers the use and value of public water supplies, fish protection, wildlife, recreational waters, agriculture, industry and water navigation methods. The suitability of water bodies is examined by country and tribe/country usage based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. States and tribes also examine geographical arrangements, scenery quality and economic considerations to determine the suitability of use set for water bodies. If those standards indicate that the intended use is lower than the current one, the state or tribe is asked to revise the standard to reflect actual usage of the thaf being achieved. For any water body with a specific purpose that excludes the use of the "usable/swimming" target identified in section 101 (a) (2) of CWA, "Use Flux Analysis" shall be performed. Every three years, such water bodies should be re-examined to verify whether new information is available that requires a standard revision. If new information is available that determines the use of "salable/feasible" may be obtained, use shall be established.
Water quality criteria
States recognized by federations and states protect certain areas by adopting water quality criteria that enable them to adopt criteria published by the EPA under Ã, §304 (a) CWA, modify criteria §304 (a) ) to reflect site-specific conditions or adopt criteria based on other scientifically retained methods. Water quality criteria can be a numerical criterion that the cause of poisoning is known to protect against pollutants. Narrative criteria are water quality criteria that serve as a basis for limiting toxicity of waste to aquatic species. Biological criteria are based on an aquatic community that describes the number and types of species in water bodies. Nutritional criteria solely protect against nutrients above enrichment; and sediment criteria describe the conditions of contaminated and uncontaminated sediments to avoid undesirable effects.
Anti-degradation policy
Water quality standards consist of an anti-degradation policy that requires states and tribes to build a three-tiered anti-degradation program. The anti-degradation procedure identifies steps and questions that need to be addressed when certain activities affect water quality. Tier 1 applies to all water surfaces. It maintains and protects current uses and water quality conditions to support existing uses. Current uses are identified by showing that fishing, swimming, and other water uses have occurred and are suitable since 28 November 1975. Tier 2 maintains and protects water bodies with better existing conditions to support CWA 101 (a) (2) using fishable/swimmable Tier 3 maintains and protects water quality in outstanding national resource waters (ONRWs), which are the highest quality waters in the US with ecological significance.
General policy
Indian states and tribes adopt general policies relating to water quality standards to be reviewed and approved by the EPA. Provisions on water quality standards include zone mixing, variance, and low flow policy. Mix zone policy is defined area around the point of the source of the discharge in which the waste is diluted by water. The methodology of the mixing zone procedure determines the location, size, shape and quality of the mixing zone. The policy of temporary variance relaxes water quality standards and is an alternative to eliminating designated use. States and tribes can include variants as part of their water quality standards. Variance should be reviewed every three years and ensure the development of water quality improvement. Low Flow Policies relate to state and tribal water quality standards that identify procedures applied to determine important low flow conditions.
Nonpoint sources
Congress excludes several sources of water pollution from the definition of point sources in CWA 1972 and is unclear about the status of some other sources. These sources are therefore considered to be non-point sources that are not subject to the licensing program.
The abundance of agricultural stormwater and irrigation backflows is specifically exempt from the permit requirements. Congress, however, provides support for research, technical and financial assistance programs at the US Department of Agriculture to improve runoff management practices in farms. View Natural Resources Conservation Service.
The stormwater overflow from industrial sources, city hurricane channels, and other sources was not specifically addressed in the 1972 law. The EPA refused to include urban runoff and industrial rainwater drainage in the NPDES program and was demanded by environmental groups. In 1977, the Circuit Court of Appeal D.C ruled that the release of sea water should be covered by a licensing program.
More and more water research during the late 1970s and 1980s showed that rainwater runoff was a significant cause of degradation of water quality in many parts of the US. In the early 1980s, the EPA conducted the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to document the extent of the city storm problem. The agency began to develop regulations for the scope of stormwater permits but faced resistance from industry and municipalities, and there was an additional round of litigation. The trial process was delayed when Congress considered a further amendment to CWA in 1986.
In the 1987 Water Quality Act, Congress responded to stormwater problems by defining stormwater industry dischargers and municipal sewer systems (often called "MS4") as point sources, and requiring them to obtain NPDES permits, with specific deadlines. The release of permits for agricultural disposals continues, but Congress created several programs and grants, including a demonstration grant program at the EPA to expand the research and development of control and nonpoint management practices.
Financing of pollution control
Congress created a major public works finance program for municipal sewage treatment at CWA 1972. The grant system for the construction of municipal sewage treatment plants was authorized and financed under Title II. In the initial program, the federal portion of each grant reached 75 percent of the facility's capital costs, with the rest financed by the state. In subsequent amendments, Congress reduced the federal proportion of the grant and in 1987 WQA switched to a revolving loan program in Title VI. Other industries and private facilities are required to finance their own maintenance repairs under the principle of "polluter pays".
Water and Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
Congress passed the 2014 Air Products' Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Fund (WIFIA) to provide an expanded credit program for water and wastewater infrastructure projects, with wider eligibility criteria than the previously approved revolving fund for CWA Title VI. Under the WIFIA, the EPA established the Center for Infrastructure and Water Resilience by 2015 to help local governments and city utilities devise innovative financing mechanisms, including public-private partnerships. Congress changed the WIFIA program in 2015 and 2016.
Main legal terms
This law has six titles.
Title I - Related Research and Programs
Title I includes the Declaration of Purposes and Policies and various grant authorizations for research programs and pollution control programs. Some programs passed by the 1972 law are underway (eg section 104 research program, section 106 pollution control program, part 117 of the Chesapeake Bay Program) while other programs no longer receive funds from Congress and have been terminated.
Title II - Grants for Construction Care Jobs
To assist cities in creating or expanding sewage treatment plants, also known as public-owned processing works (POTW), Title II establishes a construction grant system. The 1972 CWA provided that federal funds will support 75% of project costs, with state and local funds providing the remaining 25%. In 1981 Congress reduced the proportion of federal funding for most grants by 55%.
The construction grant program was replaced by the Clean Water Country Rolling Fund in WQA 1987 (see VI/VI), although some local utilities continue to receive a "special project grant" directly from Congress, through a procedure budget known as "earmarking. "
Title III - Standard and enforcement
Disposal permissions required
Article 301 of the Act prohibits discharges into US waters except by permission. Recreational boats are exempt from permit requirements, but ship operators must apply Best Management Practices to control their discharges. (See Title IV for discussion of licensing programs.)
Technology-Based Standard Program
Under the 1972 Act EPA began issuing technology-based standards for municipal and industrial sources.
- The municipal waste treatment plant (POTW) must meet the standards of secondary care.
- Waste guidance (for existing sources) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are issued for the category of industrial facilities that are directly discharged into the water surface.
- Categorical Pretreatment Standard issued for industrial users (also called "indirect release") contributes waste to POTW. These standards are developed in conjunction with the effluent guide program. Like effluent and NSPS guidelines, the pretreatment standard consists of Pretreatment Standards for Existing Resources (PSES) and Pretreatment Standards for New Resources (PSNS). There are 28 categories with pretreatment standards by 2018.
To date, categorical pretreatment effluent and regulatory standards have been issued for 59 categories and apply to approximately 40,000 facilities discharged directly into the country's waters, 129,000 facilities disposed of to POTWs, and construction sites. These regulations are responsible for preventing the removal of nearly 700 billion pounds of pollutants each year. EPA has updated several categories since their initial announcement and has added a new category.
Secondary care standards for POTWs and waste guidelines are carried out through NPDES licenses. (See Title IV.) Standard pretreatment categories are usually applied by POTW through the permissions they provide to their industry users.
Water Quality Standards Program
Water quality standards (WQS) are risk-based requirements that specify permissible levels of pollutants in certain locations for individual water bodies, such as rivers, lakes, rivers and wetlands. The state establishes WQS by assigning use to water bodies (eg recreation, water supply, aquatic life, agriculture) and applying water quality criteria (numerical pollution concentrations and narrative requirements) to protect designated use. Anti-degradation policies are also issued by individual countries to maintain and protect existing uses and high quality waters.
If a country fails to issue WQS, the EPA shall issue a standard for that country.
Water bodies that do not meet applicable water quality standards with technology-based controls are placed in section 303 (d) lists of water bodies that do not meet the standards. Water bodies in the 303 (d) list require the development of the Daily Maximum Total Expense (TMDL). TMDL is the calculation of the maximum number of pollutants that can be received by water bodies and still meets WQS. TMDL is determined after studying the specific properties of water bodies and sources of pollutants that contribute to noncompliant status. Generally, TMDL determines the load based on Waste Load Allocation (WLA), Load Allocation (LA), and Margin of Safety (MOS). Once the TMDL assessment is completed and the maximum pollutant loading capacity is determined, an implementation plan is developed that outlines the steps needed to reduce the load pollutants to water bodies that do not fit, and bring them into compliance. More than 60,000 TMDL are proposed or developed for US waters in the next decade and a half decades.
Following the publication of TMDL for water bodies, the application of the requirement involves modifications to the NPDES permit for facilities to use water bodies to meet WLA allocated to water bodies (see Title IV).
In 2007, about half of rivers, lakes, and bays under EPA supervision were not safe enough to fish and swim. The development of WQS and TMDL is a complex process, both scientifically and legally, and this is an resource-intensive process for state institutions.
National Water Quality Inventory
The primary means of informing the quality of river water, lakes, rivers, ponds, river estuaries, coastal waters and US wetlands is through the National Water Quality Inventory Report. Assessment of water quality is carried out in accordance with water quality standards adopted by states and other jurisdictions (territories, interstate and tribal commissions). The report is submitted to Congress as a means of informing Congress and the public of compliance with the quality standards set by the state, territory and tribe. Assessment identifies water quality problems in states and jurisdictions, lists of damaged and threatened water bodies, and identifies non-point sources that contribute to poor water quality. Every two years the country must submit a report describing the condition of water quality to the EPA with a complete investigation of the costs and social and economic benefits to achieve the objectives of the Act. This report is organized into two major sections; Section 1 shows the national assessment of each type of water body, with causes and sources identified. Section 2 summarizes the recommendations for improved water resources management.
Enforcement
Under section 309, the EPA may issue an administrative order against the infringer, and seek a civil or criminal punishment if necessary.
- For the first violation of the criminal negligence, the minimum fine is $ 2,500, with a maximum fine of $ 25,000 per day offense. Offenders can also receive up to one year in prison. In the second offense, a maximum fine of $ 50,000 per day may be issued.
- In order to find harmful infringement that is to put others in danger of death or serious bodily injury, fines can be incurred up to $ 250,000 and/or imprisonment up to 15 years for an individual, or up to $ 1,000,000 for an organization.
States authorized by the EPA to administer the NPDES program must have the authority to enforce license requirements under the laws of their respective countries.
Federal facility
Military bases, national parks and other federal facilities must comply with CWA provisions.
Thermal pollution
Section 316 requires standards for the disposal of heat pollution, as well as a standard for cooling water intake structures (eg, fish screens). These standards apply to power plants and other industrial facilities.
Nonpoint Source Management Program
The 1987 Amendment created the Nonpoint Source Management Program under section CWA 319. The program provides grants to states, territories and Indian tribes to support demonstration projects, technology transfer, education, training, technical assistance, and related activities designed to reduce non-pollution sources -point. Grants for this program averaged $ 210 million per year for Fiscal Year 2004 to 2008.
Title IV - Permissions and licenses
Country compliance certification
States are required to certify that disposal authorized by a federal license will not violate state water quality standards.
permit NPDES for point source
The NPDES permission program is authorized by the CWA section 402. The initial licenses issued in the 1970s and early 1980s focused on POTWs and industrial wastewater - usually "processing" wastewater and cooling water if applicable, and in some cases, water rain industry. WQA in 1987 expanded the program to explicitly cover rainwater drainage, both from municipal sewerage systems (MS4) and industrial sources. MS4 NPDES permits require municipalities to manage Best Management Practices to reduce pollutants to a "Maximum Practical Room."
POTWs with combined sewerage are required to comply with the national JOINT Comprehensive Disposal Control Policy, published by the EPA in 1994. The policy requires municipalities to make improvements to reduce or eliminate pollution problems associated with overflow. Around 860 communities in the US have combined sewer systems, serving about 40 million people.
Non-stormwater water permits typically include limits of numerical effluent for certain pollutants. The numerical limitations quantify the maximum pollutant load or the permitted concentration in the waste, for example, 30 mg/L of biochemical oxygen demand. Exceeding the numerical limitations is a violation of the license, and the discharge is liable to the fine specified in section 309. The facility shall periodically monitor its waste (ie, collect and analyze wastewater samples), and submit a Discharge Monitoring Report to the appropriate agency, to demonstrate compliance. Stormwater permits typically require facilities to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and apply best management practices, but do not specify numerical waste limits and may not include periodic monitoring requirements. Some permissions include both stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. The NPDES permit must be re-issued every five years. Permit agents (EPA, state, tribe) should provide a public notice of pending permissions and provide opportunities for public comment.
In 2012, the EPA estimates that there are more than 500,000 stormwater feuds. This amount includes permanent facilities such as municipalities (POTW, MS4) and industrial plants, and construction sites, which are temporary storm disposal.
Dredge and populate exceptions
After part of the CWA in 1972, there was controversy over its application to agriculture and certain other activities. The law is interpreted by some to place restrictions on virtually all placement of dredge material in wetlands and other waters in the United States, raising concerns that the federal government will put all agricultural activities under the jurisdiction of the US Army Engineer Corps (USACE). For opponents of the Act, section 404, as a result of this concern, becomes a symbol of dramatic over-regulation. When Congress considers the CWA Amendment of 1977, a significant problem is ensuring that certain agricultural activities and other eligible activities may continue without government oversight - in other words, completely outside the regulatory jurisdiction or permission of any federal agency.
The 1977 amendment includes a set of 404 exclusion parts. For example, really new activities such as agricultural road construction, Sec. 1344 (f) (1) (E), construction of agricultural ponds or stock pools or irrigation ditches, and small agricultural drainage, Sec. 1344 (f) (1) (A), all of which are excluded by the Statute. Section 1344 (f) (1) (C), which excludes disposal of dredge material "for the purpose of... drainage line maintenance." All of these exceptions are envisaged to execute themselves, which do not technically require the determination of administrative jurisdictions. One example is the maintenance of agricultural drainage channels. During the proceedings, congressmen from each environmental persuasion repeatedly stated that more than $ 5 Billion invested in drainage facilities can be maintained without any government regulation. Senator Edmund Muskie, for example, explains that excluded activities such as agricultural drainage will be completely unregulated. Other exceptions are also provided, including exceptions for normal farming activities.
The importance of no-jurisdiction determination
Although Congress envisioned a series of self-executing exceptions, it has become common for landowners to seek the determination of the jurisdiction of USACE. A landowner who intends to make substantial investments in land acquisition or repairs may legitimately continue with free activities, permits are not required. The problem is that if the land owner assumption is wrong and the activity is then determined not to be excluded, USACE will issue a stop and stop order. Getting an advanced decision provides some level of comfort that the activity will be considered to be done in good faith.
Retrieval exceptions
Because some of the six exceptions involve new activities, such as small drainage and silviculture (forest clearing by the timber industry), Congress recognizes the need to impose some restrictions on exceptions. As a result, Congress placed a restriction on the so-called re-clause on the exclusion of this new project. According to section 404 (f) (2), the new projects will be revoked if the following three characteristics can be demonstrated:
- The release of dredging material or content in US navigable waters;
- The disposal is incidental to an activity which aims to bring a navigable water area into a previously unused use, and
- Where the flow or circulation of navigable water can be disrupted or the range of the water can be reduced.
To remove exceptions, all of these requirements must be met - disposal, project objectives for bringing an area into a previously unused use, and a decrease or reduction of the navigable waters.
Permission to dredge and fill (swamps, lakes, rivers, rivers and other waters in the US)
Under section 301 and 502 of the Clean Water Act, any emptying of dredging material or filling into "US waters," including wetlands, is prohibited unless permitted by a permit issued by USACE pursuant to section 404. In essence, all material disposal or dredged materials affecting the water base elevation of US jurisdictions require a US Department of Army (USACE) license. These permits are an important part of protecting rivers and wetlands, which are often filled by land developers. Wetlands are essential for ecosystems in filtering rivers and streams and providing habitat for wildlife.
Logging removal of mountain peaks requires permission of section 404 when soil and rock from mining operations are placed in rivers and wetlands (commonly called "filling valleys"). Disposal of pollutants from valleys filling into rivers also requires NPDES clearance.
There are two main types of wetland permits: general permits and individual permits. General licenses change periodically and cover broad categories of activities, and require that they comply with all the conditions specified. General permits (such as National Permits) are issued to fill in activities that will result in minimal adverse effects on the environment. Individual permissions are used for actions not dealt with by general permits, or that do not meet the provisions of the General Permit. In addition, individual permissions typically require more analysis than general permissions, and typically require more time to set up an application and process permissions.
When USACE processes an application for an Individual License, it must publish/issue a public notice explaining the proposed action described in the permit application. Although the Corps District Engineer made the decision to grant permission, the USEPA Administrator can veto the permission if it does not make sense. Before making such a decision, however, USEPA should consult with USACE. DA permit usually ends after five years.
POTW Biosolids Management Program
WQA 1987 created a program for the management of biosolids (sludge) generated by POTWs. The law instructs the EPA to develop guidelines for the use and disposal of sewage sludge or biosolids. EPA Regulations: (1) Identification of use for waste sludge, including disposal; (2) Determine the factors to be considered in determining the actions and practices applicable to each use or disposal (including the publication of information on costs); and (3) Identification of pollutant concentrations that interfere with any use or disposal. The EPA created the Intra-Mud Body Assistance Unit to help develop a comprehensive mud regulation designed to do the following: (1) Undertake a mud waste management audit, focusing on sewage sludge generated by POTWs; and (2) develop an integrated Agency policy on sewage management, designed to guide the Agency in implementing a mud waste management and management program.
The term biosolids is used to distinguish recyclable sludge that can be recycled. The environmental advantage of the sewage sludge consists of, the application of sludge to the soil due to soil properties and nutrient content. Profits also extend to the reduction of adverse health effects of incineration, reduced chemical fertilizer dependence, reduced greenhouse gas emissions from incineration and reduction of fuel costs and incineration energy. Utilization of profitable mud wastes is supported in the EPA policy: 1984 Useful Use Policy and 1991 Interagency Policy for Useful Use of Stacked Mud, in order to reduce volume. waste generated. Sludge waste contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus but also contains a large number of pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa and parasitic worm eggs. Sludge also contains more than the amount of organic and inorganic chemicals. The benefit of reusing sludge waste from organic use and nutrient content in biosolid is a valuable resource in increasing marginal land and serves as a supplement for soil fertilizers and conditioners. Expansion of sludge benefits to agricultural commodities includes improving forest productivity, accelerating tree growth, re-vegetation of forest lands previously destroyed by natural disasters or construction activities. Also, the use of mud waste to help the final vegetative cover growth for urban solid landfills is extremely beneficial. Oppose the benefits of sludge water resulting from high levels of pathogenic organisms that may contaminate soil, water, plants, livestock, and fish. Pathogens, metals, organic chemicals and odors are a major cause of health, environmental and aesthetic factors. The sludge treatment process reduces the pathogen levels that become important when applying sludge to the soil and distributing and marketing it. Sludge contaminants come from domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater disposal, municipal sewerage and also from runoff from parking lots, lawns and fields applied by fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides.
The quality of sewage sludge is controlled under section 405 (d), where the limitation is governed by the method of using or disposing of pollutants in the sludge. EPA, under section 405 (d) (3), establishes a containment approach to limit pollutants rather than numerical limits. This methodology makes more sense than numerical limits and includes design standards, equipment standards, management practices, and operational standards or a combination of these. Limitations of the quality of sewage sludge allow processing work that produces less contaminated pollutants and which do not meet the mud quality standards for use and disposal practices should clean up the influent, improve sewage sludge treatment and/or choose other uses of disposal methods. The EPA has set standards for appropriate biosolid use and disposal practices to protect public health and the environment, but use options or disposal practices are provided to local communities. Listed under section 405 (e) CWA, local communities are encouraged to use their sludge for profitable properties rather than disposing it.
Standards are set for waste sludge produced or processed by privately owned and owned companies that handle domestic waste and municipal wastewater. The materials flushed in the household sewer through sinks, toilets, and tubs are referred to as domestic waste water and include soap, shampoo, human excreta, tissue, food particles, pesticides, hazardous wastes, oils and fats. Domestic waste water is treated in sources in septic tanks, septic tanks, portable toilets, or in public/private wastewater treatment plants. Alternatively, municipal wastewater treatment consists of more levels of care that provide larger wastewater cleaning with larger amounts of mud waste. Primary municipal care removes solids that settle at the bottom, producing more than 3,000 liters of mud per million liters of treated wastewater. The primary sludge water content is easily reduced by thickening or discharging water and containing up to 7% solids. Secondary municipal processing processes produce sludge waste generated by biological treatment processes including active sludge systems, trickling filters, and other attached growth systems. Microbes are used to break down and convert organic matter in wastewater into microbial residues in biological processing. This process removes up to 90% organic matter and produces sludge containing up to 2% solids and has increased the volume of sludge produced. Methods for the use and disposal of sewage sludges include the following: Application of sludge to agricultural and non-agricultural land; sell or provide mud for use in home gardens; mud disposal at municipal waste dumps, landfills, surface drainage and mud incineration. Managing the quality of mud waste involves not only waste water reduction and separation of contaminated waste from non-contaminants but also pre-treated non-domestic wastewater. Pretreatment does not completely reduce the level of pollutants and therefore people have to throw away rather than using mud.
Title V - General Terms
Clothes of citizens
Every US citizen may file a civil suit against anyone allegedly violating a restriction restriction or against an EPA Administrator if the EPA Administrator fails to perform the non-discretionary action or obligation requested by the CWA.
Employee protection
CWA covers the provision of employee protection ("whistleblower"). Employees in the US who believe that they are dismissed or have adverse action related to CWA enforcement may file a written complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Title VI - Water Pollution Control State of Revolving Fund
The Clean Water Rolling Fund (CWSRF) program was adopted by WQA 1987. It replaced the city's construction grant program, which was enacted in the 1972 law under Title II. At CWSRF, federal funds are provided to states and Puerto Rico to utilize their own revolving funds, used to provide financial aid (loans or grants) to local governments for wastewater treatment, control of non-point source pollution and estuary protection.
The fund lends to the city government at a price below the market price. The average interest rate is 1.4 percent nationally by 2017, compared with an average 3.5 percent market rate. In 2017, CWSRF aid worth $ 7.4 billion was awarded to 1,484 local projects across the country.
Previous law
During the 1880s and 1890s, Congress directed USACE to prevent dumping and filling the national port, and the program was enforced vigorously. The first congress dealt with water pollution in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, giving the Corps the authority to regulate most types of barriers for navigation, including the hazards resulting from waste. Portions of this law remain in force, including Section 13, called the Disapproval Act. In 1910, USACE used the move to reject the proposed sewerage in New York City, but the court ruled that pollution control was the only problem left for the states alone. Speaking to the 1911 National River Congress and Harbors, the head of the Corps, Brigadier General William H. Bixby, suggested that modern care facilities and dumping bans "should be made compulsory or at least encouraged everywhere in the United States."
Some parts of the 1899 action have been replaced by various amendments, including CWA 1972, while other notable legislative predecessors include:
- The Public Health Service Act of 1912 extends the US Public Health Service's mission to study sanitation, waste and pollution issues.
- The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 prohibits the deliberate removal of fuel oil into tidal waters and authorizes the USACE to catch offenders. This was repealed by CWA 1972, reducing the role of the Corps in pollution control over the disposal of dredged or contents material.
- the 1948 Water Pollution Control Act created a comprehensive set of water quality programs that also provide some financing for state and local governments. Enforcement is limited to interstate waters. The Public Health Service provides financial and technical assistance.
- the Water Quality Act of 1965 requires the state to issue water quality standards for interstate waters, and authorizes the newly created Federal Water Pollution Control Agency to set standards where the state fails to do so.
When the EPA first opened its doors in 1970, it has weak authority to protect US waters, has no legal power to write waste guidelines and has only general authority to request secondary treatment of industrial disposal.
Clean Water Act and environmental justice
The Executive Order 12898 (1994) states "... every Federal agency shall make environmental justice a part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse human or environmental health effects of its programs, policies and activities on minorities , low-income, and indigenous people. "This order is also intended to advocate for non-discrimination in federal programs affecting the environment and public health, and aims to provide access for low-income, minority, and indigenous peoples to public information and participation.
Case law
- United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985). The Supreme Court upheld the scope of the Act in regulating wetlands mingling with navigable waters. This ruling was revised by the 2006 decision Rapanos .
- Edward Hanousek, Jr v. United States of America (9th Cir Court of Appeals, 1996; certiorari rejected, 2000). In 1994, during a rock removal operation, the backhoe operator accidentally hit an oil pipeline near a railroad track. An operator error causes the pipe to break and spill between 1,000 and 5,000 gallons of heating oil into the Skagway river. Although not present at the scene during White Pass operations and Yukon Route Roadmaster Edward Hanousek, Jr. and President Paul Taylor are equally responsible for the spill and punishment.
- North Cook County Solid Waste Agency (SWANCC) v. United States Armed Forces Engineer Corps (2001), may deny ownership of CWA in isolated intrasate waters and certainly deny the validity of 1986 "Migratory Birds Rules."
- S. D. Warren Co v. Maine Bd. Env. Protection (2006). The court ruled that section 401 of state certification requirements apply to hydroelectric dams, which are licensed federal, where dams cause discharge to navigable waters.
- Rapanos v. United States of America (2006). The Supreme Court questioned federal jurisdiction when attempting to define the use of the Law on the terms "navigable water" and "waters of the United States." The court rejected USACE's position that its authority over water was essentially unlimited. Although the case does not result in binding law, the Court proposes a narrowing of federal jurisdiction and implies that the federal government needs a more substantial connection between navigable and wetland federal waters than has been used but remains on a "significant relationship" test.
- Northwest Environmental Advocates et al. v. EPA (9th Cir Court of Appeals, 2008). Ship disposal must meet the NPDES permit requirements.
- National Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Court of Appeals Cir, 2009). Sources of biological pesticide disposal points, and chemical pesticides leaving residues, into US waters are subject to NPDES permit requirements.
- Army Corps of the Army v. Hawkes Co. 578 US __ (2016), 8-0 ruled that the determination of jurisdiction by the Army Engineers Corps that the soil contains "waters of the United States" is an "act of the final agent", which may be examined by the court. This allows landowners to sue in court if the Army Engineer Corps determines that the land contains the waters of the United States (and therefore is under the Clean Water Act).
Recent developments
The waters of the United States
In May 2015 the EPA released new rules on the definition of "US waters" ("WOTUS") and enforcement of future actions. Thirteen states are suing, and on August 27, US District Chief Judge North Dakota Ralph R. Erickson issued an initial court order blocking the regulations in those states. In a separate lawsuit, on October 9, the divided Sixth Circuit Court appeal still applies the rule nationally. Congress passed a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act that overturned the WOTUS rule, but President Barack Obama vetoed the action.
On February 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed a document directing the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to review and rewrite the Obama Administration's "Clean Water Regulations", which would clarify the WOTUS definition. Agencies are ordered to reassess consistent rules by promoting economic growth and minimizing regulatory uncertainty.
The Sixth Circuit appeals court was canceled on January 22, 2018 when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the challenge to the 2015 rule should be filed in US district court. The EPA then formally suspended the 2015 rules and announced plans to issue a new version by 2018.
Effects
To date, the water quality objectives declared by Congress in 1972 have not been achieved by American society:
- "made all US waters salable and won by 1983;"
- "to have zero water pollution disposal in 1985;"
- "to prohibit poisonous toxic waste".
More than half of US flows and river miles continue to violate water quality standards. Surveys of lakes, ponds and reservoirs show that about 70 percent are damaged (measured by surface area), and slightly more than 70 percent of the country's coastline, and 90 percent of the ocean surveyed and nearby coastal areas are also disrupted. The reasons for the damage vary by location but can be explained mainly due to urban runoff, run-off of chemicals from the agricultural industry, and changes in the water industry by humans. This source of pollution is difficult to control through national regulatory programs.
However, since the enactment of the 1972 law, the level of pollution in the United States has decreased dramatically. The law has produced a cleaner water channel than it was before the bill was passed. Agriculture, industry, communities and other sources continue to dispose of waste into the national surface waters, and many of these waters are the source of drinking water. This was stated in a paper in 2008 that the Clean Water Act has contributed very positively to the environment, but is in dire need of reforms to address the remaining pollution problems.
A 2017 economic study found that "most types of water pollution decline [during the period 1962-2001], although the rate of decline slows down over time... Our findings about the decline of most pollutants imply that the prevalence of such violations is even greater before the Clean Water Act. "Some studies have estimated that CWA costs (including expenses for the Title II grant construction program) are higher than benefits. An EPA study has similar findings, but admits that some types of benefits are not measurable. ( View Cost-benefit analysis.)
See also
- Great Lakes Area Concern
- Ocean Disposal Act
- Water supply and sanitation in the United States
- Oil Pollution Act 1990
- Demands of Frasure Creek
References
Further reading
- EPA Alumni Association (2016). "Water Quality: Half Century Progress." - A description of the 50-year EPA water conservation effort
External links
- text and CWA analysis
- Working related to the Clean Water Act on Wikisource
- Clean Water Act - Full text with amendments until 2011-01-04. Retained by California Water Resources Control Board.
- "Handbook of Clean Water Procedures." Environmental Law Institute (2nd edition, 2012).
- NYT Investigation: Corporations Violate the Water Act More Than 500,000 Times in the Last Five Years (2009-09-14) - video report by Democracy Now!
- EPA program
- The Clean Water Scrolling Fund
- Total Maximum Daily Expense
- Historical legislative documents
- US Congress 92 (October 28, 1971). "S. 2770, Amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972". 86 U.S. Statistics 816 . US Capitol Visitor Center . Retrieved September 11, 2013 .
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments