The overall goal of the Clean Water Act is to eliminate the discharge of pollutants in the navigable waters of the United States (Bagley, p.487). To be in violation of the Clean Water Act, the SafePack Materials Pollute group must have several elements present to prove a valid claim towards our company. First, the group must be able to prove that our product is truly the cause of the seepage from the landfill into the nearby stream. Other evidence that may be used as proof may include testimony from witnesses, photographs or video tapes. The group must also be able to prove if our company does or does not have a NPDES permit. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, a NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into water of the United States (NPDES Overview).…
The clean water act was made to make all water fishable and swimmable. The federal government took over the responsibility after individual states failed to do so. They wanted to make the water healthy for people to drink and enjoy.…
● clean air act United States federal law designed to control air pollution on a national…
Answer: The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into the water within the United States. It also regulates the quality standards for our United States surface waters. The Clean Water Act has made it unlawful to discharge any form of pollutant from any point source into the navigable waters, unless you obtain a permit. With this said; any business is unable to dispose of any pollutants their business may need to discharge in the waters of the United States.…
Under the CWA discharge of pollutants by industry is unlawful and regulated by permits (Clean Water Act). The Safe Water Drinking Act passed by Congress in 1974 allocates funds to each State to implement water system improvements, operator training, and public education. This legislation created and gave the Florida Department of Environmental Protection jurisdiction (Safe Drinking Water Act). The Water Resources Act of 1972 created and gave jurisdiction to the South Florida Water Management District as part of five management districts in the state of Florida. Under this legislation, South Florida Water Management District was tasked with regulating water consumption, improving flood and drought control, improving water supply and quality, and protecting and restoring ecosystems…
The propose change is to focus on redefining waters of the United states. The waters of the United States including the regional oceans, yet it doesn't characterize the term waters of the United States. To fill this hole, the EPA and the Corps have promuglated generously indistinguishable regulations characterizing that…
The federal water pollution control act has two goals: to make U.S. waters clean enough for swimming and wildlife and to end pollution of the nations waterways.…
In 1963, the 88th Congress of the United States introduced the Clear Air Act. In this original form was the first law to implement the idea of pollution control. The statue established a federal program within the U.S. Public Health Service and authorized research into techniques for monitoring and controlling air pollution. These techniques were only presented to Congress for further assessment and were not implemented. Thus, Congress enacted the Clear Air Act of 1970 to help enforce imposed regulations. This legislation authorized the development of comprehensive federal and state regulations to limit emissions from both industrial and mobile sources. Moreover, a year later President Nixon gave an executive order establishing the EPA, or Environmental Protection Agency. The agency would provide means to help implement the four major requirements affecting these sources found within the legislation. Seven years later Congress amended the legislation pertaining to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 1977 Amendments primarily concerned provisions for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of air quality in areas attaining the N.A.A.Q.S. Furthermore, the 1977 Amendments…
Yes. Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act clearly provides that the EPA Administrator shall promulgate standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that, in the Administrator’s judgment, may reasonably endanger the public health or welfare. The EPA argues that carbon dioxide, the basis of greenhouse gas emissions, is not an “air pollutant” within the meaning of the CAA. However, the definition of “air pollutant” is broad enough to encompass any air pollutant, including “any physical, chemical…substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air….” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(g). The EPA further claims it should not be required to issue…
Many of our water resources also lack basic protections, making them vulnerable to pollution from factory farms, industrial plants, and activities like fracking (www.nrdc.org). This can lead to drinking water contamination, habitat degradation and beach closures. NRDC is working to protect our water from pollution by:…
The cleanup was addressed in this paragraph. In 1972 congress passed a clean water act, they tightened dumping regulation. The same year Canada and the United States signed the great lakes to prevent pollution getting in the waterways of the great lakes. The city improved its sewer system and monitor water quality.…
Overall, the EPA has been shown, especially through this act, that they have acted irresponsibly and with too much leisure to a major situation. This is problematic for the future because it brings up the question about how they are going to react to other major crises that may appear in the future. If the EPA is seen to maintain this amount of leisure that they displayed in regard to Flint, there is a strong possibility that the crisis will be hyped up by the media and the area itself, just to bring and maintain awareness that something needs to be…
We are familiar with the reports of water contamination at some fracking sites and people often claim that such polluted water cannot be used for anything. Citizens in Pennsylvania and other States disappointingly said that they have stopped using the tap water because of the gas coming out of it, making the families sick, and they attribute it to fracking in the locality.[1] There are also environmentalists and general public who are concerned about the billions of liters of water being used in this process. They contest that fracking, more than being merely an environmental issue, is a public health issue and that it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way.…
Communities in the rural areas of the United States have been majorly impacted and continue to have health problems and loose animals due to this issue, even when the companies say they “fixed the problem” by adding water filters for clean water tanks. With these so called “fixes” people are still having issues with the water being contaminated. The filter solution took a great deal of time to be an option because oil and gas companies have been slow to respond to consumers with complaints.…
This in turn filtered faster through the ground water of San Antonio and actually helped sustain the local populace (Siedenburg 699). As less limestone “clogging” and other pollutants didn’t inhibit the production of more clean groundwater. The Clean Water Act of 1970 is also at risk, due to corporations demanding it to be unconstitutional, as it inhibited their right to dump in public water systems (Siedenburg 699). It also has been obstructed by the Federal Government by receding information to the public. This is a problem as San Antonio and most Texans are growing increasingly dependent on aquifers and groundwater. With the lack of information and a possible referendum of the bill, there may be a possible water shortage.…