cleanwateract.page

The Clean Water Act or the (CWA)

�� The Federal Water Pollution Act, more frequently known as the Clean Water Act, is the nation?s most extensive and far-reaching environmental law. Initially targeted to address point sources of pollution such as industrial and municipal wastewater discharges, its focal point has enlarged to include stormwater management and nonpoint sources such as runoff from crop and forest land, construction and mining activities, and urban streets and lawns.� The act also addresses wetlands protection by adjusting dredging and filling activities in the nations'waters (Reauthorization Internet).

Jobs of the Clean Water Act��

Water Act has several primarily jobs.� One is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's water(Federal Internet).� Pollutants classified under the CWA include priority pollutants, including various toxic pollutants; conventional pollutants, such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coilform, oil and grease, and pH; and non-conventional pollutants, including any pollutant not identified as either conventional or priority (General Internet).�� It requires the EPA to plan national minimum standards for discharge from sewage treatment plants and major categories of industrial facilities.� These specifications are used to form discharge permits under the Act (Ocean Internet).� It is the national goal of the CWA that all of our waters should be safe for fishing and swimming(Background Internet).��

History of the Clean Water Act��

Outline of some of the significant things with the CWA

�Year�� Act

1948�� Federal Water Pollution Control Act

1956�� Water Pollution Control Act of 1956

1961�� Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments

1965�� Water Quality Act of 1965��

1966�� Clean Water Restoration Act

1970�� Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970

1972�� Clean Water Act

1981�� Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments��

1987�� Water Quality Act of 1987

(Congressional Internet)��

The Clean Water Act was originally enacted in 1948 then totally revised by amendments in 1972 that gave the Act its current shape (Congressional Internet).� The Federal Water Pollution Act was revised in 1972 because of a growing public concern? that was across the nation. For an example, the Cuyahoga River, near Cleveland caught on fire and the Saginaw River was so polluted that it did not freeze over in the winter. Amendments to the 1972 Clean Water Act were created in 1977, 1981, and 1987. These amendments provide a complete framework of standards, technical tools, and economic aid to address the many activities that can produce pollution and adversely alter water quality, including municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, polluted runoff from urban and rural areas, and habitat destruction(Spicer Internet). The 1987 amendments phased out the grants programs but constructed new State Revolving Funds (SRF) in each state.� States obtain Federal grants, add in State funds, and then make low interest loans to communities to pay for wastewater treatment and other clean water projects (Spicer Internet).�� In 1987, the Water Quality Act strengthened the Clean Water Act by focusing on stricter regulations of toxic chemicals from industry, acid rain, and water pollution from diffuse sources such as agricultural runoff, sewage overflows during storms, and runoff from city streets.� It required states to devise programs to deal wit the problem (Waterways Internet).� In May of 1995, the House passed H.R. 961, which approved to permit increases in sewage, industrial water, and coastal and runoff pollution, while rolling back water quality standards (Waterways Internet).� The Clean Water Act's history is much like that of the environmental movement itself.� Once widely supported, buoyed by its primary success, the Clean Water Act has discovered increasingly complex problems (Waterways Internet).��

Successes of the Clean Water Act

�� One important success of the CWA is very meaningful.Billions of dollars were spent building municipal wastewater treatment plants.� Due in large part of the federal investments under the CWA, the proportion of the U.S. population served by secondary or better wastewater treatment plants increased considerably; from 42 percent in 1970 to more than 62 percent in 1992 despite a 30 percent increase in the volume of sewage flows in that time (Everybody Internet).

�� Here is another important success since the CWA has been written in 1972. Toxic flows were decreased.� More than one billion pounds per year of toxic pollutants are momentarily removed from our nation's waters.� Fish kills have declined and rivers and lakes began to improve (Everybody Internet).

Was the CWA a complete success?

Swimming Hazards and Beach Closures

�� In an inventory of 1994, the EPA did report how many waters the states hypothesized were swimmable.� In the 1990 inventory, the EPA report that the CWA swimmable goal was met in about three-quarters of our rivers and estuaries, more 82 percent of our lakes, and almost 90 percent of our ocean waters.� Even these optimistic numbers lead us to determine that, almost a decade after the 1983 goal for swimmable water, a big number of water bodies (one out of ten ocean miles and one of five lake acres) aren't safe for swimming.� But a closer analysis suggests that many more waters are not safe for swimming (Alder 11).��

Pollution of Drinking Water

�� The CWA was intended to exclude water pollution in the rivers and lakes from which half of the century (by population) gets its driing water. The improvement of the Clean Water Act is important to the average citizen's drinking water for two reasons.� First, ultimately, cleaner water supplies will produce cleaner water to drink.� Second, the public faces increasing costs for treating drinkable water to get rid of contaminants that should not be there in the first place (Alder 12).

Fish and Shellfish Contaminants

�� In late 1992, EPA published the results of a five-year study to evaluate the presence of ?toxic chemicals that may be bioaccumulating in fish.� This study looked for the presence of 60 pollutants in 119 species of fish collected from 314 water bodies.� Biphenyl, mercury, PCBs, and DDE? were detected at over 90 percent of the test locations.� EPA determined that the levels of pollutants measured in fish around the country posed notable risks of cancer and other health effects to average fish purchaser and even higher risks to subsistence and recreational anglers (Alder 12).

Sediment Contamination

�� Toxic pollutants in sediment can contaminate an entire aquatic ecosystem.� Small organisms live in and/or feed on the toxic sediment. Bottom-feeding fish eat these small fish, and the bottom feeders themselves are consumed by larger fish. Given that toxic pollutants bioaccumulate or biomagnify in higher levels of the food chain, sediment contamination levels can actually understate concentrations of the same pollutants in fish and shellfish.� In 1992, the Coast Alliance prepared a comprehensive survey of available information on sediments contamination.� Based on a 1992 survey, by the Coast Alliance, the EPA concluded that waters have become so polluted that only the most remote water bodies can be expected to have pristine sediments (Alder 12).��

Comparisons of Water Quality�

25 Years Ago

�� Only one-third of U.S. waters were safe for fishing and swimming.

�� Fish died in major rivers and lakes due to pollution that robbed the water of oxygen

�� Widespread pollution resulted in many shellfish being unsafe to eat.

�� Beach water quality was not monitored.

Serious water pollution resulted in poor water quality on a watershed scale in every region of the country.

�� Approximately 460,000 acres of wetlands were lost every year.

Factories spewed pollution virtually unchecked.� One river even caught fire from floating slicks of toxic wastes.

Two and one quarter billion tons of soil were lost through erosion from cropland each year. Large amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen compounds washed into many bodies of water.

(25 Years EPA)

Water Quality of Today

States report that two-thirds of waters surveyed meet basic standards for swimming and fishing.

Many water bodies are free of pollution that robs the water of oxygen, and healthy conditions for fish and shellfish are restored in many places.� However, almost 2,200 fish consumption advisories are still necessary to warn people of toxics in fish and shellfish.

Nationally, 6.7 million acres of shellfish growing waters are closed or limited to harvest.� For 75 percent (4.2 million acres) of these waters, the limitation is attributed to water quality.

In 1996, almost 2,600 beach closings occurred, many due to overflows of sewer systems and polluted runoff.� Many beaches are still unmonitored.

Sixteen percent of watersheds have good quality throughout.� Twenty-one percent of watersheds have very serious problems and thirty-six percent have some problems.� Twenty-seven percent of watersheds do not have sufficient information available to determine their health.

The rate of annual wetlands losses is estimated at about 70,000 to 90,000 acres according to recent studies.���� 

Federal Clean Water Act standards have reduced pollution by billions of pounds per year, including reducing toxic pollutants by 1 billion pounds per year.

One and one quarter billion tons of soil are lost through erosion from cropland.� New farming practices have greatly reduced runoff of phosphorus and nitrogen, but more remains to be done.

173 million people are served by modern sewage treatment plants.� Even though the number of people served has doubled, improved treatment has caused the amount of pollution released by these plants to drop to one-half the amount released 25 years ago.

(25 Years EPA)

Predicted Water Quality in the Future

��All Americans will enjoy clean water that is safe for fishing and swimming.

Healthy waters throughout the nation will support fish and shellfish that are safe to eat.

��Recreational beaches will be safe and open for swimming.

�� Watersheds throughout the nation will support healthy aquatic systems.

Clean water standards will continue to require the best technology for preventing pollution.

�� Runoff of phosphorus and nitrogen compounds and erosion of soil will be

�� minimized helped to sustain the nation's farming economy and aguatic systems.

�� The nation's waters will be free of the effects of sewage releases.

�� (25 Years EPA)�

Pros and Cons of the Clean Water Act

Pros of the CWA

�� One pro to the CWA is that the CWA has had an tremendous amount of impact on the condition of rivers and it could become an even more effective tool if polluted run-off and antidegradation provisions are more aggressively employed.� It is by far the most effective tool for protecting wetlands and, in the 401certification requirement, offers one of the few legal roadblocks to the FERC hydropower permit (River Internet).� Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, or the State Water Quality Certification program, requires that states certify compliance of federal permits or licenses with state water quality requirements and other applicable state laws (Nature Internet).

�� Another pro to the CWA is that the Act has provided more opportunities for citizen lawsuits than any other piece of environmental legislation short of the EIS process.� It also empowers citizen activists with a clear legislative mandate to take independent legal action when regulatory agencies do not do the job (River Internet).

Cons of the Clean Water Act

�� There are three cons to the Clean Water Act.� One is the function of the Clean Water Act, distinctively the provisions addressing polluted runoff, watershed protection, and

antidegradation policy, has been inconsistently used by the states.� State water quality regulations vary widely, some states have not determined specific uses for their rivers, and many states provide so many variances that loopholes for powerful nonpoint polluters are abundant (River Internet).

�� Another con to the CWA is that too much emphasis is still given to chemical purity without referral to the biological condition of rivers, although that it is supposed to change in 1995.� States are often unwilling to employ narrative descriptions and biological criteria in their water quality evaluations because they know that the more extensive biological data often paints a bleaker picture of water quality (River Internet).

�� The last con to the Clean Water Act is that it is practically impossible to measure the water quality of every river in every state, and in fact only about a third of the nation's rivers are controlled in any two-year interval.� Also while there is at least a fundamental effort to classify and designate National Resource Waters, in which no pollution will be allowed, the thrust of water quality efforts to date has been to lessen rather than exterminate, and mitigation plainly slows the rate of degradation; it does not stop it (River Internet).��

�Suggestions for a Stronger CWA

�� Congress should amend the Clean Water Act to:

�� Adopt the Clinton Administration's proposal to study key industries use of chlorine,

�� which creates dioxin as a by-product, and follow up with additional regulation as needed.

�� Require EPA to develop a list of other chemicals whose discharge eventually will be prohibited.

�� Eliminate loopholes that allow polluters to dilute toxics in our lakes and rivers.

Require the EPA to test chemicals to determine their health risks in addition to cancer, and to alter criteria used in standards-setting to also consider effects on human reproduction, endocrine, immune, and neurological systems.

Prohibit production or use of new chemicals until they are screened for health risks and bioaccumulation.

Set water quality standards to ensure edibile fish and require the public posting of warning about the hazards of eating fish
caught in certain areas (Hair 26).

�Conclusion

�� So the Clean Water Act did what it was supposed to do, but it has a long way to reach the national goals of clean water.� Clean water that is swimmable and fishable is what the general public wants.� When will the CWA reach the nationals goals of clean water, only time can tell.��

Works Cited

Alder, Robert. The Clean Water Act: Has It Worked?� EPA Journal: Clean Water Agenda

�� United States Environmental Protection Agency.� Summer 1994.� 10-14.

Clean Water-25 Years in the Making.� Clean Water Act Anniversary.� EPA.� No pages

available.� A poster.

Clean Water Act.� Committee for the National Institute for the Environment.

�� Available on Online.� Accessed:� April 2, 1998.� http://www.cnie.org/nle/leg-8c.html

Clean Water Act Anniversary: Celebrating 25 Years of Progress.� Spicer Engineering

�� http://www.spicereng.com/inthenews/cwa.htm

�� Company.� Available on Online. Accessed:� April 2, 1998.

Clean Water Act: Pros and Cons.� River Network Online.� Available on Online.

�� Accessed: April 2, 1998.� http://elaine.teleport.com/~rivernet/cwapros.htm

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (Clean Water Act).� United States Government.

�� Available on Online.� Accessed: April 2, 1998.� http://www.usbr.gov/cleanwat.html

Hair, Jay R.� We Must Strengthen the Clean Water Act.� National Wildlife. V. 32 Aug-Sept. 26��

The History of the Clean Water Act.� Waterways and Wetlands at NRDC.

Available on Online.� Accessed: April 4, 1998 http://www.nrdc.org/bkgrd/wacwahis.htm

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws