Clean Water Act
 |
|
According to the text of the Clean Water Act, its purpose is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters." The act established water quality standards for surface waters, programs regulating the discharge of industrial and municipal wastewaster, regulation of nonpoint source water pollution (pollution with no single, identifiable source), and federal funding for municipal sewage treatment plants.[1][2]
Federal and state governments share enforcement responsibilities. States are responsible for establishing, reviewing, and revising water quality standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for reviewing state standards for their adherence to federal requirements.[3]
Background
The precursor to the federal Clean Water Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1948), authorized federal funding to states and localities for local water pollution issues. The 1948 act also authorized the federal government to regulate interstate waters with consent from the state where pollution originated. The act's amendments in 1956, 1961, 1965, and 1966 provided further federal funding to municipal facilities that discharge pollutants; authorized federal regulation of pollutant discharges from municipal facilities; permitted federal regulation of navigable intrastate waters; and established minimum water quality standards for surface waters—such as streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was amended in 1972 to become what is now known as the Clean Water Act.[4]
The 1972 Clean Water Act includes the following requirements:[5]
- Reduction of pollutants discharged into waters of the United States
- Federal pollution control programs, including wastewater standards for municipalities and industrial facilities
- State government authority over setting and revising water quality standards, including standards for contaminants in surface waters
- Prohibition of pollutant discharges from specific, identifiable sources without a permit
- Federal funding for municipal sewage treatment plant construction
- Regulation of nonpoint source pollution—defined as pollution from broadly distributed and disconnected sources
Legislative history
See bill: Clean Water Act
The table below summarizes congressional actions related to Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948.[6]
| Clean Water Act and amendments, 1948-1987 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | Act | Citation |
| 1948 | Federal Water Pollution Control Act | P.L. 845 |
| 1956 | Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 | P.L. 84-660 |
| 1961 | Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961 | P.L. 87-88 |
| 1965 | Water Quality Act of 1965 | P.L. 89-234 |
| 1966 | Clean Water Restoration Act | P.L. 89-753 |
| 1970 | Water Quality Improvement Act | P.L. 89-753 |
| 1972 | Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Clean Water Act) |
P.L. 86-353 |
| 1977 | Clean Water Act Amendments | P.L. 95-217 |
| 1981 | Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments | P.L. 97-117 |
| 1987 | Water Quality Act | P.L. 100-4 |
| Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Federal Water Pollution Control Act)," accessed September 23, 2014 | ||
Provisions
- See also: Implementation of the Clean Water Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires industrial and municipal sources of pollution to hold permits before pollutants can be discharged into navigable waters (defined in the act as the "waters of the United States, including the territorial seas"). The system sets the allowable amount of pollutants discharged by a single, identifiable source; regulated pollutants include wastes, soils, rocks, chemicals, bacteria, suspended solids, heavy metals, pesticides, and more. NPDES permits are issued by authorized state agencies or the EPA. The permits require industrial sources and municipalities to meet measurable discharge limits by a certain date noted in the permit's terms and conditions. These sources must also maintain records and monitor all pollutant discharges.[7]
Water quality standards
The Clean Water Act requires enforceable water quality standards to maintain overall water quality. Standards for bodies of water are based on the water's designated use; such uses include industrial water supplies, swimming, fishing, agricultural irrigation, and more. States establish water quality standards for waterways within their borders, though the EPA may disapprove and replace state standards with its own if they do not meet the act's minimum requirements. The act also requires that standards outline the maximum allowable concentrations of various pollutants that would not inhibit a waterway's designated use.[3][8]
State governments monitor waterways to ensure that bodies of water meet standards. For waters that do not meet quality standards, states use two additional anti-pollution methods to ensure impaired water bodies ultimately meet standards. First, states will set total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), which are the maximum allowable amounts of a pollutant in impaired bodies of water. TMDLs are set with the goal of reducing pollution so a body of water can meet quality standards. Second, states will divide the maximum allowable amount of a pollutant discharge into an impaired water among various pollution sources.[9]
Dredged and fill material permits
Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the release of dredged or fill material into waters under federal jurisdiction. Dredge is material excavated from bodies of water, and fill material includes anything used for replacing an aquatic area with dry land or adjusting the bottom elevation of a waterway. Individuals, businesses, or organizations that plan on disposing of dredged or fill material into a jurisdictional water must receive a federal permit. Activities exempt from permitting requirements include ranching, farming, and forestry practices that do not alter the use or characteristics of a land, certain construction and maintenance practices, and activities regulated under other provisions of the act.[10][11]
Municipal construction grants
The 1972 Clean Water Act authorized federal funding for the construction of municipal sewage treatment plants. Known as Title II and Title VI construction grants, the funds were distributed for municipalities to comply with the act's pollution control standards for municipal water supplies. In 1990, federal construction grants were transferred to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), which provides federal funds to state governments to distribute as grants or loans to localities. This funding is used for wastewater treatment and other pollution control programs and facilities. Funding is allocated based on state population and a periodic survey conducted by the EPA and state governments, which determine the estimated needs of municipal sewage treatment facilities. States must also match what they receive in federal funding.[3][12][13]
Support and opposition
Support
- In an article titled Success and Backlash: The Remarkable (Continuing) Story of the Clean Water Act (2013), University of Alabama law professor William Andreen argued that because of the Clean Water Act, "Both municipal and industrial discharges have declined sharply, the loss of wetlands has been cut decisively, and water quality has broadly improved." According to Andreen, the Clean Water Act successfully "combined technology-based limitations with ambient-based quality standards in a creative attempt to combat rising levels of water pollution." In addition, Andreen cited a 2000 report from the EPA, which argued that industrial point source discharges into bodies of water fell by 40 percent between 1973 and 1995. Andreen concluded, "All of this was achieved without causing any significant harm to the economy in terms of employment, growth, or investment."[14].
- In a December 2012 post on Slate titled "Why Rivers No Longer Burn," James Salzman, a contributor to The New York Times Magazine and professor of environmental law at Duke University, argued that the Clean Air Act has led to less pollution, fewer discharges into bodies of water, and improved water quality since the act's passage. Salzman cited the cleanup of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, Lake Erie, the Charles River in Boston, and the Hudson River as examples of the act's success. Further, Salzman credited the act's prohibition of all discharges into navigable waters without a permit and the law's requirement that industrial and municipal facilities must have the best available anti-pollution technology with less water pollution. "By many measures, the Clean Water Act has fulfilled the ambition of its drafters. The sewage discharges that were commonplace in the 1960s are rare. The number of waters meeting quality goals has roughly doubled," Salzman concluded.[15]
- In a December 2009 paper titled Clean Water Act Enforcement: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies argued that U.S. streams, rivers, and lakes had improved primarily due to the Clean Water Act's enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels. The authors concluded, "Over the past 37 years, the Clean Water Act (CWA) has played a vital role in improving the health of our nation’s waters." However, the authors argued that Congress should authorize greater funding for municipal wastewater treatment facilities and other water infrastructure projects, arguing, "In short, any efforts to improve water quality through enforcement efforts will be unsuccessful without a return of the federal government to its proper role as an investment partner in clean water with local governments.[16]
Opposition
- In a December 2000 article titled "1491 and All That" in the quarterly journal American Outlook, a publication of the Sagamore Institute, whose stated mission is "to make government policy smarter, to strengthen civil society, and to advance free enterprise at home and abroad," Richard A. Halpern argued that the Clean Water Act "set in place a regulatory system that does not and cannot promise verifiable environmental benefits" because Congress did not gather the data necessary for determining how water quality should be improved and quantifying the specific water quality impacts of various discharges into bodies of water. "After nearly thirty years and $600 billion worth of hit-and-miss technologies, we still don't know what has been achieved or what still needs to be done," Halpern concluded.[17]
- In a June 28, 2017, article titled "Amend Clean Water Act, Restore Private Property Rights", R.J. Smith, the Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose stated mission is "advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty", wrote that vague language in the Clean Water Act (CWA) has been used to expand federal regulation over private property and lands that are not actually navigable waters. Smith argued, "Instead of using the CWA to protect the nation's navigable waters, the federal government has long been using the Act for national land-use control," including regulation of creeks, tributary streams, irrigation runoff ditches, and lands that become wet during rainy seasons or after thunderstorms. Smith concluded that "it is past time for the U.S. Congress to revisit the CWA and amend it to state clearly and unambiguously that 'navigable' means 'navigable.'"[18]
- In a November 23, 2016, article titled Three Key Reforms for Federal Water Policy, Daren Bakst, research fellow in agricultural policy at the Heritage Foundation, whose stated mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense," argued that the Clean Water Act has been used to retroactively revoke Section 404 permits (permits for the discharge of dredged material excavated from waters or of material that replaces water with dry land) for property owners even if the permit holder has already complied with the act. Bakst argued that Congress should prohibit such actions by revising the act, concluding, "If the EPA continues to retain such power, it will create uncertainty and undermine investment and property values. This unpredictability is both unfair to property owners and harmful to economic growth."[19]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Clean Water Act. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Clean Water Act,” accessed January 29, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "NPDES Home," accessed September 23, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 U.S. Congressional Research Service, "Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law," December 15, 2010
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "History of the Clean Water Act," accessed September 22, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "What is Nonpoint Source Pollution?" accessed September 23, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, "Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)," accessed September 23, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "NPDES Home," accessed September 23, 2014
- ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "Federal Water Quality Standards and Requirements," accessed July 9, 2017
- ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "Program Overview: Total Maximum Daily Loads," accessed July 6, 2017
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Section 404 Permitting," accessed September 23, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "CWA Section 404-Permits to Discharge Dredged or Fill Material," accessed September 22, 2014
- ↑ Cornell University Law School, "33 U.S. Code, Section 1381 (Grants to States for establishment of revolving funds)," accessed September 22, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs (2009 Annual Report)," accessed September 22, 2014
- ↑ The University of Alabama School of Law, "Success and Backlash: The Remarkable (Continuing) Story of the Clean Water Act," accessed July 1, 2017
- ↑ Slate, "Why Rivers No Longer Burn," December 10, 2012
- ↑ National Association of Clean Water Agencies, "Clean Water Act Enforcement: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century," December 2009
- ↑ Sagamore Institute, "American Outlook - 1491 and All That," December 1, 2000
- ↑ Competitive Enterprise Institute, "Amend Clean Water Act, Restore Private Property Rights," June 28, 2017
- ↑ The Heritage Foundation, "Three Key Reforms for Federal Water Policy," November 23, 2016
| |||||||||||
