Operating outside the Clean Water Act and the EPA Cloudy Waters: Operating outside the Clean Water Act and the EPA

The Issue: Public Disservice Since the dawn of civilization, man has abused waterways by using them for disposal of waste The abuse led to disease and sickness of those who relied on the water source for other purposes As the processes undertaken used increasingly harmful materials, disposal became more controversial Through the years, the disregard of dumping waste into waterways has evolved to hazardous proportions Companies need to consider the effects of their operations on others, not just the bottom line

The Nature of Water Pollution Pollution of rivers regularly caused by companies includes sediment, acid, alkaline, pesticides, heavy metals, chemicals like cyanide, zinc, lead, copper, cadmin and mercury, heated water, and bacteria Typical ways business operations have contributed to polluted waterways are farming, mining and industry About 43% of American lakes and rivers are too polluted for swimming or aquatic life 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, storm water and industrial waste are dumped into U.S. rivers yearly

Our Rivers, Lakes and Streams Mississippi River Oil spill Effects on Lake Michigan

The Environmental Protection Agency The EPA was founded in July 1970 to respond to growing public demand for cleaner water, air and land Pollution was at an all time high, and there was no activity on the Federal level to combat polluters EPA’s job would be twofold: Repair the damage done and establish new rules to make a clearer environment Actions towards this goal include federal research, monitoring, standard setting and enforcement EPA has taken great strides through the decades, first halting ongoing pollution, then repairing old damage

EPA Photo-Biography Then… First EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus …Now Current EPA Administrator Jackson

The Clean Water Act (CWA) Passed by Congress with EPA encouragement in 1972 to stop the pollution of U.S. waterways by businesses Protects waters that are relatively permanently standing or flowing (streams, oceans, rivers, lakes) Sets up the EPA/government as a permit granter to “point sources”, the pollutant dischargers Requires businesses to adopt a standard of pollution- preventing technology based on practices/industry Outlines available penalties that can be upon regulation infraction, including fines and/or jail time

Recent Developments: Court Ruling Recent NY Times article looks at the court decision that sets the Clean Water Act back years The court’s decision created a question of which waterways are still protected under the CWA The court’s ruling questions interpretation of the CWA as covering all waters or just “navigable waters” The questionable status has opened a window for some of the biggest polluters to return to old practices Many cases against polluters have been stalled or shelved due to the inherent ambiguity of the rules

Avondale Creek in Alabama David Walter Banks for the New York Times Now exempt from the CWA due to court ruling A pipe maker has dumped oil, lead and zinc

Corrective Legislation A bill called the “Clean Water Restoration Act” has been introduced to the U.S. Senate to amend the CWA The restoration act would reaffirm the old interpretation of the CWA with explicit wording Since the ruling, EPA and state regulators have been avoiding cases that may challenge the CWA further. Another bill introduced has attempted to more broadly define pollutants to include mining waste If the bills can be passed, the definition of what is protected and what is a pollutant will be expanded.

Businesses to Take Responsibility Public opinion is decidedly against pollution of waterways, especially the scale of business operations Despite this, many companies continue to pollute just within the legal confines, or trying to dodge regulation The EPA expects that if investment in new- environmentally friendly operations are not employed, waterways could worsen to the 1970’s pollution levels Businesses who take initiative in reforming their operations could benefit from public approval (“green” movement), and diminished risk of EPA punishment

Which “green” is better?

Sources http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01water.html?h p http://www.epa.gov/ Rapanos v. United States Supreme Court case Clean Water Act – Wikipedia http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/07-26/water- pollution-facts-article.htm http://www.nynrm.sa.gov.au/Portals/5/pdf/LandAndSoi l/18.pdf