Environmental Protection Blog

Blog archive

Clean Water Act Attacked

As the Clean Water Act (CWA) inches closer to its 40th anniversary in U.S. law and policy, a series of proposed regulations threaten to hamper the level of protection certain waterways receive.

According to theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Water Act, “establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters” – oh, and protects all the waters of the United States. The CWA implemented pollution control programs and wastewater standards; making it unlawful to dispose contaminants in waters without permits.

The CWA doesn’t have a clear list of regulated waterways and constantly fights lawsuits that threaten water protection, but recently politicians have been taking aim at the vague CWA definition.

Senators John Barrasso (R-WY) and Dean Heller (R-NV) proposed an amendment to the Fiscal 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 2354); preventing the Army Corps of Engineers from clarifying the extent to which wetlands and intermittent streams are protected under the Clean Water Act. This proposed bill will deny protection to approximately one-fifth of the country’s wetlands and nearly two million miles of streams.According to the New York Times, the House approved a similar amendment and now the final votes rest in the hands of Senate majority leader, Harry Reid and Democratic colleagues.

The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2354, attacks the Obama administration’s April 2011 proposed list of guidelines that clarify waterway protections – also insisting the guidelines would achieve permanent regulation. Of course, there was outcry from non-supporters. Well, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers were prohibited from carrying out the guidelines by the House; and, the proposed Senate bill will permanently prohibit the guidelines.

So, why all the fuss over clarifying the CWA?

If Barrasso and Heller’s proposed bill is passed, about 20 percent of the wetlands in the U.S. would not be protected under the CWA – allowing toxin discharges to flow through those unprotected waters; thus, affecting more than 117 million Americans that get water from these unprotected waterways.

Americans don’t need to sit around and wait for government officials to pass laws that threaten environmental protection and personal health; by contacting Senators, everyone can voice their opinion. Voice your opinions to your Senators about the Barrasso/Heller Amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2354.

Posted by Christina Miralla on Nov 16, 2011 at 11:18 AM


Comments

Tue, Dec 13, 2011 Editor

For anyone commenting on this portion of Environmental Protection, please be advised that blog posts do express personal opinion as opposed to news articles.

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 Susan Colorado

It does not reflect well on Environmental Protection to be publishing politicized rhetoric rather than a sober analysis of proposed regulations. There is a legitimate ongoing debate about the constitutional scope of federal jurisdiction, and this "article" does a poor job of addressing that debate. The author chooses instead to push her own personal bias.

Tue, Dec 6, 2011 Mark Michigan:

Hello: What "toxin discharges to flow through those unprotected waters"? This paper makes it sound like wetlands are immediately impacted with some magical toxins if the legislation is passed. The wetlands will continue to operate as they always have. The question is not this scare tactic, but whether we want the definition of what is a wetland to be changed.

Sun, Dec 4, 2011 Gaia San Francisco

Here's what's in the amendment: Navigable waters are re-defined as any stream that could have a canoe (one-time recreational use) on it, sometime in the year. This is a huge redefinition that will have a wide-ranging impact on the jurisdiction of government agencies on your small ephemeral stream. Also: wetlands. These are not lands that can become flooded at some time in the year and then dry out, but the Clean Water Act will identify them that way. This amendment will protect those lands that are occasionally flooded but not really wetlands i.e. not having the biological conditions required. Our laws are going too far and are creating havoc in rural areas. Most of you city dwellers have no idea what is going on in more rural areas. Restrictions on use are going to impact your food sources very soon. Regulation that over-reaches is destroying our ability to be independent from other countries. Your water is clean. Concentrating people into cities creates a tremendous amount of pollution.

Wed, Nov 30, 2011 Sirocco Jerry San Diego, CA

So teach your children what "Sustainable Relationships" are.. and the planet has a chance. For right now, politicians don't get to be politicians, unless they take a vow of "manipulative selfish behavior".

Wed, Nov 30, 2011 Editor

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about this issue or any other blog post that includes opinions expressed by EP editors, please feel free to contact them by email. You can reach Christina Miralla at cmiralla@1105media.com

Tue, Nov 29, 2011 Eric Canton Ohio

The CWA needs to be protected, but the comments by Christina Miralla surely do not help anyone understand what is going on. It gives no specific details and just a bunch of rhetoric.

Tue, Nov 29, 2011 Sirocco Jerry San Diego, CA

NOTHING should disrupt a focus on protecting the environment but an asteroid. "Life is a filter that runs on Water" And the World Community has responsibility in sustainability.. no duh. the Good News is.. Capitolism will fund protection of our environment.. that's the way business works, andthat allows us all to have suustainable jobs. Now.. ifwe could just get the world's inhabitants to behave. Ooops.. now we have to deal with lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians. Moral to my story.. behave in a sustainable manner, and support small and green business.. we profit WITH the environment.

Tue, Nov 29, 2011 Gregg

This is not a "state's rights" issue. Protections of our environment, including ones to protect safe drinking water MUST be done at the federal level. Water does not respect state boundaries. The CWA was passed with vast bipartisan support under a republican president during a time of political negotiations and barganing. Don't you remember the river in Ohio that caught on fire? The CWA is now being attacked for political reasons in this era of political divide. I hope there are enough sensible people in Congress who will stand to protect this very sucessful program that has significantly improved water quality in our country. Bipartisanship is in order on this issue and many others.

Tue, Nov 29, 2011 Not-A-Miracle Concord, NH

It's interesting to note that the major sponsors in the Senate for this bill are senators from states that don't have much water. You would think that they, above all others, would be more inclined to protect wetlands and streams rather than fill them in or put them in culverts.

Tue, Nov 29, 2011

The EPA has become a gang of ruffians and thugs. MORE governmental control means LESS rights to the individual and to business. By ignoring sound scientific evidence and arbitrarily changing CWA standards they are imposing greater control over the population.

Fri, Nov 18, 2011 Dick Rasch Pa

The above comments surely helped in understanding the intent of the new legislation. Funding would be better spent eliminating contaminates from getting into the waterways, rather than trying to take them out afterwards ( e.g. litter is 1 example or do street sweeping more often & so on). ... The latter being another unfunded mandate dumped onto the local governments. Thanks EPA.

Wed, Nov 16, 2011 Robert OConnor United States

Without Clean Water There Is No Cities... The Planet Is Dying For The Sake Of Profits...

Wed, Nov 16, 2011 Aristodle

The CWA was passed with an understanding that cost and benefit were to be balanced. No longer is that so.Municipalities are being forced to spend billions building facilities that have ni identifiable benefit (based on decades of data) and then an extra 50 to 100 million a year operating those facilities mostly for energy contributing to CO2 and related emissions. At the same time they establish regulations that while they work for many are scientifically unsound for for tropical climates and impose extra for all persons living in tropical clines.

Wed, Nov 16, 2011 Steve Williams

Christina, You misunderstand the issue. It is not about water quality protection. It is about the limits of the Federal government. So I say write your congressman to support this bill and then tell your State legislators what you would like to see done at that level.

Wed, Nov 16, 2011

The Clean Water Act as currently enforced by the USEPA will bankrupt more Cities that the excessive retirement programs that Govenment employees are negotiating. "pollutants" like Bacteria and Metals cannot be removed from storm water flows because of the shear volume of water that must be treated. In the arid southwest it is even worst, We would build the treatment plants for five to ten rain events a year. The economicx of this program make no sense.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Related Blogs

Articles

Products

Whitepapers