In 1972, the CWA was adopted due to increasing concerns for the nation’s water pollution levels (History of the Clean Water). The CWA’s purpose was to focus on the point source-pollution, which is pollution that is caused by the contamination deposited into the water by companies. Under the CWA, companies now had to comply with the permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which regulates the amount of pollutant they are allowed to discard into the nation’s water (Holst). There was now regulations and a framework concerning toxic spills that the EPA could effectuate.
Following the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Water Quality Act was adopted in 1987 which redirected the focus of the CWA. The focus shifted from point source pollution-pollution caused by the contamination deposited into the water by manufacturers, to non-point sources, which is pollution caused by agricultural factors. The shift was caused by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), which was created to fund projects regarding water pollution. Many of the funds have been used for non-point solution projects (Clean Water Act: A Summary). Before 1987, only one third of the nation’s waters had acceptable water quality, but the passing of the Water Quality Act resulted in better water quality for two thirds of the nation (Wiszniewski).
There have been few issues regarding CWA regulations, until the EPA was sued in 2015 due to lack of duty to issue regulations regarding companies discharging toxic substances into the nation’s water. In 2016, a significant alteration in the EPA’s administrator occured when Scott Pruitt was confirmed to run the EPA. It has been evident that Pruitt disagrees with many of the pre-existing regulations regarding the CWA and intends on creating more “industrial friendly regulations” (Davenport). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York necessitated that the EPA sign a notice which would respond to the issue of the point source pollution control due to the court case that occured in 2015. The EPA, now run by Scott Pruitt, then reviewed the current structure of the CWA and regulations, and came to the conclusion that no changes are necessary. As a result in 2018, the Federal Register 2018-13470 proposes no new requirements or issue any new regulations that will prevent toxic substances from being deposited into the water (Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances).
Many companies are in favor of the Federal Register 2018-13470 proposal because supporters argue that there are already enough regulations in place regarding the discharge of any substances. For instance, Section 401 of the CWA requires a certification from the state if there are any projects involving future discharges of any dredged material, which is any substances removed from the U.S. Nation’s water. The certification is also required for any fill material, which is material that has the possible effect of replacing wetland areas with dry land (Dept. of the Army). If the company does not comply with the guidelines provided, they will be given a sixty day notice stating the certification is no longer applicable (Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water).
Section 311 states that there should be no hazardous substances, especially oil, deposited into any of the nations “navigable waters.” If there are any substances that can have an immediate hazardous impact on wildlife or beaches, the Administrator shall be notified in order to review the case and make any appropriate modifications in order to comply with the water standards (Clean Water Act (CWA)). Because of the pre-existing regulations, supporters argue that there could be possible duplicity when creating future guidelines (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Any new regulations would also lead to high costs and resources that would have little impact in benefitting any health or environmental issues (Trade Associations).
Although there are already some regulations preventing discharges, there is still a significant amount of topics that are not addressed regarding the discharge of pollutants. The American Water Works Association argues that the current regulations do not provide a sufficient amount of information regarding potential hazards, prevention/countermeasure action, and notification of contamination in the water supply. There are also very few regulations that assess the potential issues of storing hazardous substances “near significant sources of drinking water” that could lead to contamination of the nation’s potable water supply (comment 2). The Association of Metropolitan Agencies (AMWA) argues that any potable water contamination can have a number of negative effects on the community, health wise and economically. AMWA states that if any sort of toxic spill occurs, or a “disruption in supply,” it would lead to high costs in trying to purify the water or create a new source of water supply for the nation (comment 9).
The EPA’s proposal to not create any new regulations regarding the disposal of toxic waste would have a negative result due to lack of scrutiny. The CWA does not accommodate for the number of risks regarding the contamination of drinkable water, as stated above. Not to mention, when the EPA reviewed the current structure of the CWA and regulations in 2016, some volatile elements concerning investigation of any spills and “periodic independent compliance audits” were the least covered elements in the analysis (comment 16). The current 2018 proposal would create a better framework of regulations for companies since there would be no new regulations are imposed on them. However, the approval of this proposal can pose negative impacts on the nation’s health and economy.
Personally, I have always been concerned with the quality of water in my area for many reasons. For instance, many restaurants serve water from the tap, which means that the water is most likely unfiltered. Many customers, including me, would consume that water and could possibly intake the unfiltered chemicals/substances. Not only am I concerned about the water quality in restaurants, but also in my household. The quality of water in my home is not poor, however it does not seem clean enough for me to ingest. Not only do we drink water, but we also use it for daily tasks such as showering, washing dishes or clothes, or cooking. Water quality is very concerning for me because we use water to complete daily tasks, and it can have a negative impact on our health if the quality is poor.