The Clean Water Act (CWA) developed in 1972, was one of the first acts to initiate standardized regulations to prevent pollutants and chemicals from manufacturing companies to contaminate water sources. Under the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded by establishing certain regulations to help limit the amount of pollutants that manufacturing plants could dispel into water sources. However, Section 301 of the CWA also stated that the EPA could allow some variances for some of these plants, also considered “point sources” .
However, some interpretation was need to decipher the gray area existing in Section 402 of the CWA, which stated that the EPA can grant permits to some plants, allowing for them to release different levels of pollutants into the water. The E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. felt that they should receive a variance under 1983 limits, the EPA regulations unfair. The company filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, requesting that the court review the EPA regulations.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Water Pollution And Safety".
In the end, the Court ruled on the side of the CWA and EPA, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. not granted a variance permit. The court felt that granting new permits would be too overwhelming, requiring the EPA to determine permit circumstances for about 10,000 manufacturing companies. The court also states that allowing new permits would negate the very reason that the CWA was established: to created standard regulations that all companies could follow .
From that ruling on Section 402 that denied new permits for businesses, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established. Under the NPDES, point sources could not discharge pollutants into the water unless granted a NPDES permit. However, the program granted the EPA responsibility to set these regulations and set limits on pollutants released into water from facilities .
Some coastal states allow offshore outfalls for treating municipal wastewater discharges, while other states decided against it. Offshore wastewater outfalls are an alternative to just letting pollutants and chemicals get dumped into our waterways. These outfalls are placed within the stratified layers of lakes and coastal oceans underneath the mixed upper layers. Some pollutants get stuck there, which prevents the particles from contaminating the top water layers, as well as areas of water near shores where people enjoy beaches, etc.
However, states and federal regulations state that these mixing zones should not be too expansive and should be kept away from shorelines . In light of these regulations, a state’s decision to institute these offshore outfalls is based on certain factors. States that have small bodies of water may have a tougher time adhering to outfall standards. The smaller these water sources are, the less room there is, hence, the greater chance of these mixing zones being closer to people congregating near shorelines.
Another factor to consider is the amount of marine life in water sources. If some waterways do not have much marine life, then creating an offshore outfall in that area may not be the best solution, the potential of contaminating the scarce fish population greater. However, states that have much marine life may see outfalls as a good solution, their fish supply not as threatened. Funding to maintain these wastewater outfalls is another element to consider. States that do not have the means to fund this operation may opt to forgo the outfalls idea.
If I were in charge of the state of Florida, I would take great care in using offshore outfalls as an option. The outfalls would have to be deep enough, Florida attracting many tourists who enjoy scuba diving and snorkeling. Not using stratified layers that are deep enough can posed a risk to people in the water. Mixing zones also have to be far enough from the shoreline to prevent contact with people. I would also ensure that Florida uses both primary and secondary waste treatment, the secondary waste treatment an added measure to limit the amount of contaminants spreading into the water. During secondary treatment, waste water is exposed to microorganisms that eat and consume waste products that can make individuals sick .
According to Kam and Dudley (1981), the biological integrity is “the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organism composition to that of natural habitats within a region.” (55-68).
Several programs operate to maintain these standards through their specific missions. The Office of Water (OW) tries to maintain this biological integrity by keeping people’s drinking water safe by adhering to provisions on the Safe Drinking Water Act, helping to maintain acceptable standards, education the public about safe drinking water, and ensuring the protection of underground water sources .
Besides supporting the Clean Water Act provisions, the EPA helps maintain the biological integrity of water by supporting efforts to monitor the newest method of producing oil and natural gas, called hydro fracking. This method inject fluids under pressure into the ground to stimulate oil and natural gas production. The EPA is making sure that hydro fracking does not contaminate water or place individuals at additional health risks.
Protecting our water supply from contamination is important. Fortunately, organizations such as the EPA, OW, and acts, such as the CWA ensure that proper environmental measures are taken to keep drinking water healthy and safe. These organizations are also responsible for protecting wildlife and humans from environmental toxins. Maintaining water safety on both the federal and state levels is necessary to obtain the highest levels of water safety.
- E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v Train. (2013, November 16). Retrieved from CaseBriefSumary.com: http://www.casebriefsumary.com/e-i-du-pont-de-nemours-co-v-train/
- EPA.gov. (2007, December). EPA’s tentative decision on the renewal of CWA 301 (h) variance for the sand island wastewater treatment plant. Retrieved from EPA.gov: http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/npdes/pubnotices.html
- EPA.gov. (2013, September 19). A brief summary of the history of NPDES. Retrieved from EPA.gov: http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/history.html
- EPA.gov. (2014). About the office of water. Retrieved from EPA. gov: http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-water
- Karr, J., & Dudley, D. (1981). Ecological perspective on water and quality goals. Environmental Management , 55-68. Retrieved from EPA.gov.
