Clean Water Act

=see WATER (more about global and supply)
=<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/factory-farms-are-putting-north-carolinians-risk-interactive-map">http://www.alternet.org/environment/factory-farms-are-putting-north-carolinians-risk-interactive-map</a>==<a href="http://www.globalpossibilities.org/as-flint-struggles-with-contaminated-water-congress-tries-to-gut-clean-water-rule/">http://www.globalpossibilities.org/as-flint-struggles-with-contaminated-water-congress-tries-to-gut-clean-water-rule/</a>casey
he latest attempt to do away with a federal water rule that protects

millions of miles of streams failed Thursday, as senators couldn’t

garner enough votes to override a presidential veto and block the

contested <a href="http://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/final-clean-water-rule">Waters of the United States</a>

rule. The attempt to veto the rule, which protects bodies of water that

provide drinking water for one-third of Americans, comes in the midst

of a water contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan.

The vote was deeply divided among partisan lines, with 52 senators

voting to upheld the veto, eight abstaining and the remaining 40 voting

against it. While the vote was close, overriding a veto requires a

super-majority. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed for

the vote, which was considered a long-shot from the start, <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266489-senate-will-vote-to-override-obamas-veto-on-water-rule">less than a day</a> after President Obama vetoed a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/22">resolution</a> that would have blocked the water rule.

“Too many of our waters have been left vulnerable,” Obama said in a<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/19/president-obama-vetoes-sj-22"> message</a>

to Congress. “Pollution from upstream sources ends up in the rivers,

lakes, reservoirs, and coastal waters near which most Americans live and

on which they depend for their drinking water, recreation, and economic

development.”

The mandate, often referred to as the Clean Water Rule, was finalized in <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/27/3662802/epas-new-clean-water-rule/">May</a>

after some eight years of design. It aimed to clarify what waters the

Environmental Protection Agency can regulate under the Clean Water Act,

experts told ThinkProgress. With its unveiling, the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/documents-related-clean-water-rule">rule</a> expanded protection to two million miles of streams and 20 million acres of previously unregulated wetland.

<aside>Flint does show, of course, that water is precious, and water supplies can be endangered and agencies have a lot of work to do</aside>

Before it, previous court decisions — including at least two Supreme

Court rulings — made it unclear whether or not these waters could be

regulated under the Clean Water Act. In turn, it was often difficult to

address pollution problems in wetlands and other areas, as jurisdiction

had to be determined on an almost case-by-case basis.

“And that’s a very time-consuming and expensive process,” said Victor

Flatt, professor of environmental law at the University of North

Carolina’s School of Law, in an interview with ThinkProgress.

However, how much clarity it created is in the eye of the beholder,

said Craig Oren, environmental law professor at Rutgers Law School. “The

rule is very controversial.”

Critics of the law have called the rule regulatory overreach, arguing

that it is so broad that it covers seasonal puddles and dry creek beds.

The <a href="http://ditchtherule.fb.org/custom_page/its-time-to-ditch-the-rule/#more-26">agricultural industry</a>

has also opposed the rule, claiming that it would allow regulators to

control irrigation ditches and seasonal ponds and tributaries.

The <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/62295CDDD6C6B45685257E52004FAC97">EPA denies</a>

these claims, arguing that the rule would not require any additional

permitting requirements, and would preserve all existing exemptions and

exclusions allowed under the Clean Water Act.

Many senators were resolute in their opposition to the rule Thursday.

“We have a choice today, we do have a choice. We can stand with our

farmers, with our rangers, our small businessmen, our manufacturers, our

home builders, or we can stand with an overreaching federal agency,”

said Joni Ernst, the Iowa senator who introduced the vetoed resolution,

prior to Thursday’s vote.

Congress’ attempt to undermine a major new provision of the Clean

Water Act comes at a pivotal time for streams and water consumers. Water

pollution has been under the national spotlight following a lead

poisoning <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/20/3741172/flint-mayor-interview/">crisis</a>

in the city of Flint, Michigan. The lead emergency has stretched for

months, infecting the blood of children and leaving tens of thousands of

residents without safe tap water.

Thursday’s vote may not be directly related to Flint, but upholding

the veto means the federal government is still entitled to protect

streams that supply drinking water to a third of the country. “Flint

does show, of course, that water is precious, and water supplies can be

endangered and agencies have a lot of work to do,” said Flatt. “And if

they don’t do their job, people can suffer — and that’s true about

environmental issues, too.”

But although the Clean Water Rule was kept intact, experts said the

law is still quite vulnerable. Congress could come up with another vote

as Obama is nearing the end of his term and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/09/sixth-circuit-puts-controversial-waters-of-the-united-states-wotus-rule-on-hold/">court challenges</a> to the rule are almost certain.

“The administration that comes to power might seek to repeal this

rule, or it might choose not to defend the rule in court against a

challenge,” said Oren. “Of course [all] depends on what the courts say

and what the election brings us.” ==<a href="http://www.occupydemocrats.com/after-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-republicans-swiftly-vote-to-gut-obamas-clean-water-rule-2/">http://www.occupydemocrats.com/after-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-republicans-swiftly-vote-to-gut-obamas-clean-water-rule-2/</a>ot would seem inarguable that one of the government’s basic

responsibilities is to set standards ensuring that people in the United

States have safe drinking water. So in May 2015 when the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) released its final version of the Clean Water

Rule, “the agency cheered the broad reach of the rule, arguing that it

would protect the drinking water of some 117 million Americans, or

roughly a third of the population.”

But then along came Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), who promptly

introduced a resolution to kill the EPA’s Clean Water Rule that was

passed in November – ostensibly to protect “farmers and ranchers”, who

coincidentally only comprise two percent of the population. Yesterday, the Republican-led House similarly voted 253-166 for a resolution to overturn the EPA ruling. President Barack Obama has, all-along, threatened to veto the resolutions should they pass Congress.

<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/epa-waterways-wetlands-rule-118319">The agencies and their supporters say the safety of drinking water and stream health</a>

are threatened because of weak state and local regulation and a lack of

enforcement. The rule is meant to make it clearer which waterways the

EPA and the Corps of Engineers can oversee under the 43-year-old Clean

Water Act, which covers “navigable waters” such as the Mississippi River

and Lake Erie, but is vague on how far upstream protections must go to

keep those water bodies clean.<div class="code-block code-block-2" style="text-align:center;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;margin-top:8px;margin-bottom:8px;">

</div>

Considering that just a few days ago it was disclosed that <a href="http://www.occupydemocrats.com/michiganers-demand-governors-arrest-for-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-to-balance-budget/">Michigan’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder knowingly poisoned residents of Flint, Michigan</a>

by not placing an anti-lead preventive in Flint’s water supply as

required by federal law in order to save money in an attempt to balance

the city’s budget – the callousness of the vote in the Republican House should not go unnoticed.

However, almost two years ago, in an attempt to save money under a

financial state of emergency, Michigan switched the source of its water

supply from Lake Huron (one of the Great Lakes) to the polluted Flint

River, notorious to the people of Flint for its filth. <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan/">As Flint resident Rhonda Kelso said</a>:

<blockquote>“We thought it was a joke…People my age and older,

thought ‘They’re not going to do that…The water would come in brown and

my daughter was like ‘Mom … why is the water brown? “

</blockquote>

Kelso actually thought the brown color came from sewage, but no, it

was iron, which was 19 times more potent than the Lake Huron supply. The

mineral chemically reacted with lead lining old plumbing in many homes.

Because the governor did not add the anti-lead preventive, the chemical

soup started poisoning many of the residents – resulting in Kelso and

four other families filing a class-action lawsuit.

<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan/">CNN noted that</a> “Flint residents say they were kept in the dark for 18 months until a local doctor, <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan/">Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha a physician in a local medical center pediatric ward</a>

took things into her own hands. “When (my research team and I) saw that

it was getting into children and when we knew the consequences, that’s

when I think we began not to sleep…at first, the state publicly

denounced her work, saying she was causing near hysteria. They spent a

week attacking her before reversing their narrative and admitting she

was right.” Ironically, adding that agent would have cost about $100

a day, and experts say 90 percent of the problems with Flint’s water

would have been avoided.

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/13/michigan-gov-activates-national-guard-to-help-deal-with-flint-water-crisis.html">It

should be noted that in the last couple of days, the Michigan National

Guard began arriving in Flint to help with the drinking water crisis,

including distributing bottled water to the municipality’s residents.</a>

<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/265734-house-votes-to-overturn-obamas-water-rule">This EPA rule pertained to clearing up the ambiguity brought about</a>

“because a pair of Supreme Court rulings left significant waterways

with unclear protections, including ones that sometimes lead to sources

of drinking water.” <a href="https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43455.pdf">In developing the Clean Water Rule, the EPA and the Corps relied on a synthesis</a>

prepared by EPA’s Office of Research and Development of more than 1,200

published and peer-reviewed scientific reports; the synthesis discusses

our current scientific understanding of the connections or isolation of

streams and wetlands relative to large water bodies such as rivers,

lakes, estuaries, and oceans.

We know, through their well-established litany of ignorant

utterances, that Republicans don’t care about science – only about the

corporations and greedy oligarchs that pull their strings. Consider the

list of backers who lobbied against the EPA rule: The US Chamber of

Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have joined the

ranks of the American Farm Bureau Federation, Dairy Farmers of America,

pesticide manufacturers, mining companies, home builders, and the Koch-owned-and-run timber industry, to name but a few.

Now consider that the citizens of Flint are mostly poor, with 40 percent of the population living below the poverty level. So <a href="http://www.omaha.com/opinion/paul-ryan-water-rules-show-epa-s-overreach/article_79487f96-cca1-5afa-a194-4d63a398c2aa.html">when House Speaker Paul Ryan writes</a>: “The

Obama administration’s sweeping new rule, dubbed Waters of the United

States (WOTUS), could upend the way water is used across the country,”

for whom is he speaking? Clearly he is not concerned about ensuring

clean drinking water for the 117 million Americans or the poor residents

of Flint.

Should it ever be necessary in this country in the 21st century to

call out the National Guard to distribute drinking water because a

Republican governor or any official elected or otherwise decided to

poison a city of people to save $100 a day?

People living in this country use water without a second-thought in

everything from drinking and cooking – to growing the crops we eat – to

the animals we raise – only in a Republican world is ensuring the safety

of the waters of the United States ‘upending the way water is used in

this country.’ He’s not wrong – the way corporations pollute water and

then sell it back to consumers is being upended, and that’s a win that’s

long overdue. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/01/19/flint-michigan-suffers-republicans-attack-clean-water-act">http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/01/19/flint-michigan-suffers-republicans-attack-clean-water-act</a> It isn’t often that a <a target="blank" href="http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/01/16/president-obama-declares-emergency-flint/78898604/">state of emergency is declared</a> over a disaster that is <a target="blank" href="http://www.occupydemocrats.com/michiganers-demand-governors-arrest-for-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-to-balance-budget/">100% man-made and intentional</a>,

but that’s exactly what has happened in the city of Flint, Michigan. As

residents in the city struggle to find drinkable water, the National

Guard has been deployed to help distribute bottled water to residents.

The crisis actually <a target="_blank" href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-rick-snyder-flint-water-lead-217876">began about 18 months ago</a>

when Republican governor Rick Snyder made the decision to balance the

city’s budget at the expense of the health and safety of residents

of Flint.

The governor and his appointed “budget experts” decided to save the

city some money by switching their water supply from the city of

Detroit’s supply to the Flint River, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.occupydemocrats.com/michiganers-demand-governors-arrest-for-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-to-balance-budget/">according to Occupy Democrats</a>, this river was known to be both highly polluted and carried an unusually high salt content.

The high salinity of this water caused the city’s pipes to begin eroding, which then leached lead into the city’s water.

Again, the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.occupydemocrats.com/michiganers-demand-governors-arrest-for-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-to-balance-budget/">governor and state officials were aware of the lead problem the entire time</a> it was happening, according to internal emails between the governor and officials.

In spite of that knowledge, they <a target="blank" href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266022-mich-gov-asks-obama-for-emergency-help-in-water-crisis">waited 18 months before declaring a state of emergency</a>. And the public would have remained in the dark had it not been for <a target="blank" href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan/">medical professionals coming forward</a> to explain what was happening to Flint residents and their children.

The entire problem could have been avoided at a cost to the city of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.occupydemocrats.com/michiganers-demand-governors-arrest-for-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-to-balance-budget/">less than $100 per day</a>.

In the midst of this crisis, and just days before the state of emergency was declared, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.omaha.com/opinion/paul-ryan-water-rules-show-epa-s-overreach/article_79487f96-cca1-5afa-a194-4d63a398c2aa.html">Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan wrote an op-ed</a> attacking the EPA’s Clean Water Rule. In the op-ed, Ryan declares that the stricter rules (finalized by the EPA

this past summer which gives the agency authority to regulate smaller

bodies of water to limit pollution) are a prime example of government

overreach and that the only goal of the agency is to micromanage how

citizens use water.

Ryan points out in his fact-free article that 32 governors have filed lawsuits against the EPA

and the Obama administration in order to block the rule from ever

taking effect, and a Circuit Court temporarily blocked implementation of

the rule back in October.

While <a target="_blank" href="http://www.omaha.com/opinion/paul-ryan-water-rules-show-epa-s-overreach/article_79487f96-cca1-5afa-a194-4d63a398c2aa.html">Speaker Ryan claims</a>

that he objects to the rule because it does damage to small farmers and

ranchers, his real goal is to protect the corporate powerhouses who

lobbied against the new rules. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.occupydemocrats.com/after-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-republicans-swiftly-vote-to-gut-obamas-clean-water-rule-2/">Those wealthy interests include</a> the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, mining

company owners, and several businesses owned by the Koch brothers.

These groups have little to no interest in farming activities, but

they are all either major polluters through their dirty energy

businesses, or they represent the interests of polluters from both the

energy and industrial manufacturing sectors. And according to a guy like

Paul Ryan, the desire of companies to pollute entire towns is more

important than the health and safety of American citizens.

Those health concerns are not hypothetical, either. Thanks to <a target="blank" href="http://www.occupydemocrats.com/michiganers-demand-governors-arrest-for-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-to-balance-budget/">medical professionals in the city of Flint</a>, we know exactly what kind of adverse health effects we’re looking at as a result of <a target="blank" href="http://www.occupydemocrats.com/after-poisoning-entire-city-with-lead-republicans-swiftly-vote-to-gut-obamas-clean-water-rule-2/">Republican-sponsored pollution</a>: impaired cognitive development, behavioral problems, and nervous system damage.

These are not short-term effects either, these problems will plague

the residents of Flint — especially young children exposed to high

amounts of lead — for the rest of their lives. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pure-earth.com/lead.html">Lead exposure and consumption</a> at such a young age is also linked to increased crime among the exposed, and anti-social behavior.

The crisis in Flint, Michigan will likely repeat itself if

corporations continue to influence the behavior of our elected

officials. It could become the new normal. =the Senate is voting on legislation that guts drinking water protections for one in three Americans. Soon, both chambers will be employing an extreme legislative tactic topermanently block any action to curb carbon pollution from power plants. And polluters’ allies in Congress are pushing for over 100 anti-environmental riders in the must-pass year-end spending bill.  Padraic, I’m worried. In all my years at LCV I’ve never seen a Congress so hell-bent on blocking protections for our air and water. Here’s what the polluters get if their allies in Congress are successful:  <ul style="margin: 2px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 40px; line-height: 18.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li>National limits on carbon pollution — permanently blocked</li><li>Drinking water protections for all Americans — thrown aside</li><li>EPA funding to protect our environment — slashed</li></ul>We’re gearing up for a massive fight. A donor has offered to TRIPLE every donation to help — but whether we win or lose depends on you.  <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=ucViXiecxdNLx5HeTv05HA" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1446751866260_2338" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: medium none; line-height: 1.4; font-weight: bold; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">THIS IS IT: Congress is unleashing an extreme legislative assault on our clean air and drinking water protections. Chip in today and your donation will be tripled »</a>  Newly elected House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are under intense pressure to rack up some wins for their corporate backers. They’re using every tool — including an arcane Gingrich-era legislative maneuver called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) — to find a way to stop the EPA’s historic progress.  Here’s the catch — the CRA vote gets fast-tracked, needing only 50 votes to pass in the Senate, and if successful, it means the EPA can never take up a “substantially similar” rule in the future — locking in the dangerous status quo that polluters desperately want.  And despite the fact that there was a significant breakthrough last week in the budget process, there are still a host of anti-environmental riders that extreme members of Congress will insist on attaching to the year-end spending bill.  lcv 10/15<p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 17.6px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">alec attacks epa and clean water act conference 12/14<p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 17.6px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/05/3599846/getting-turned-away-from-the-alec-conference/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/05/3599846/getting-turned-away-from-the-alec-conference/</a>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/salmon/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Salmon</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gold-mining/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Gold Mining</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/Pebble-Mine-Project/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Pebble Mine Project</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/copper-mining/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Copper Mining</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/Bristol-Bay-mining/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Bristol Bay Mining</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/Gina-McCarthy/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Gina McCarthy</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/Bristol-Bay/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Bristol Bay</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/environmental-protection-agency/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Environmental Protection Agency</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/sockeye-salmon/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Sockeye Salmon</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/pebble-mine/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Pebble Mine</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/alaska/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Alaska</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/pebble-mine-alaska/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Pebble Mine Alaska</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/fisheries/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Fisheries</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/EPA-pebble-mine/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">EPA Pebble Mine</a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/Green/" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">Green News</a></div>

</header>

<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-weight: normal; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;">WASHINGTON –- The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday that it is beginning a process that could block a massive proposed gold mine in Alaska from being built.

The Pebble Mine is a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/05/epa-alaska-pebble-mine-gold-copper" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline;">proposed open-pit copper and gold mine</a> that could be up to 2 miles long, a mile and a half wide, and 1,700 feet deep -- the largest of its type in North America. The proposed site for the mine is at the headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers, which feed into the Bristol Bay. It is the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world, producing nearly half of the world's wild sockeye.

The EPA said Friday that it is invoking Clean Water Act protections that would stop its construction, citing concerns about the threat it poses to the bay and the fish that depend on it. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that the agency is taking the step to "ensure that the world's most productive salmon fishery is safe from the risks it faces from what could be one of the largest mines on Earth" in a call with reporters Friday afternoon.

McCarthy cited threats to the region's multimillion-dollar fishing industry, as well as to native cultures that rely on the bay. The agency released a scientific assessment of the bay and proposed mine in mid-January, which McCarthy said provided "ample reason for EPA to believe that a mine of the size and scope of Pebble Mine would have significant and irreversible impacts on Bristol Bay."

This is only the beginning of a process that is expected to take a year to finalize. It doesn't mean that the EPA would ultimately reject the permit application, as it explained in a <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/bristol-bay-15day-letter-2-28-2014.pdf" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline;">letter to the Pebble Mine Limited Partnership</a>, which is seeking to build the mine. But it sets up a process by which the agency could eventually do that. There will be public hearings and a comment period before the agency issues a final decision.

Invoking protection under <a href="http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/dredgdis/404c_index.cfm" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline;">Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act</a> is rare; the agency has only used it <a href="http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/404c.cfm" sl-processed="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; vertical-align: baseline;">13 times since 1972</a>. The EPA has invoked its 404(c) authority before a company formally applied for a permit only one other time. "This is not something that the agency does very often, but the Bristol Bay fishery is an extraordinary resource and is worthy of out-of-the-ordinary agency action to protect it," said McCarthy.

Both McCarthy and EPA Region 10 administrator Dennis McLerran emphasized that the Bristol Bay situation is "unique" and "extraordinary."

For groups that petitioned the EPA to block the mine, Friday's announcement was a big win.

"This is a great day," said Shoren Brown, executive director of Bristol Bay United, a coalition of Alaska native, commercial and sport fishermen. "I'm shocked and, at the same time, this is the way the system is supposed to work. The EPA did the science and came to a clear conclusion that Pebble Mine is going to have huge and long-lasting impact."...kate s

</div>

===

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act</a>

The Clear Water Act (CWA) "establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters," according to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="U.S. Environmental Protection Agency">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> (EPA). Its basis is the 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which was expanded in 1972 and became known as the "Clean Water Act" in 1977, after the passage of amendments. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-EPA_summary-0">[1]</a>

"The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained," explains the EPA website. "EPA's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Pollutant_Discharge_Elimination_System&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (page does not exist)">National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System</a> (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-EPA_summary-0">[1]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>] </div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#Cooling_Water_Intake_Structure_Regulations">1 Cooling Water Intake Structure Regulations</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#Application_to_power_plants">1.1 Application to power plants</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#Application_to_mountaintop_removal_mining">2 Application to mountaintop removal mining</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#Application_to_various_bodies_of_water">3 Application to various bodies of water</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#Application_to_Maine_dams">3.1 Application to Maine dams</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#Effort_to_close_loopholes_in_Clean_Air_Act_and_Clean_Water_Act">3.2 Effort to close loopholes in Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#Articles_and_resources">4 Articles and resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#Related_SourceWatch_articles">4.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#References">4.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-10"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#External_resources">4.3 External resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#External_articles">4.4 External articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: Cooling Water Intake Structure Regulations">edit</a>] Cooling Water Intake Structure Regulations</h2>

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/EPA" title="EPA" class="mw-redirect">EPA</a> to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts, including <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Thermal_pollution_from_coal_plants" title="Thermal pollution from coal plants">thermal pollution from coal plants</a>. The EPA has been in the process of developing a rule that will define how States will establish standards for cooling water intake structures at large power plants, and is expected to be published in the Federal Register in September 2010. The rule will apply to large existing power plants that withdraw 50 million gallons per day or more and that use at least 25 percent of their withdrawn water for cooling purposes only: an estimated 422 fossil-fueled and 38 nuclear power plants representing over 308 and 52 GW of existing capacity, respectively.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-cwis-1">[2]</a> The rule has been repeatedly challenged by industry lawsuits<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-cwis-1">[2]</a>, prompting states like CA to move forward with their own regulations.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-2">[3]</a>

<h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=2" title="Edit section: Application to power plants">edit</a>] Application to power plants</h3>

On April 1, 2009, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._Supreme_Court" title="U.S. Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect">U.S. Supreme Court</a> ruled in a series of cases -- <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Entergy" title="Entergy">Entergy</a> v. EPA (07-588), PSEG Fossil LLC v. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Riverkeeper" title="Riverkeeper">Riverkeeper</a> Inc. (07-589) and Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper Inc. (07-597) -- that the EPA may rely on "cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards," when applying the CWA to power plant cooling systems. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-3">[4]</a>

The CWA requires "power plants that use at least 50 million gallons of water a day to generate steam for electricity" to use the "best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact" cooling water intake structures. Justice <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Antonin_Scalia" title="Antonin Scalia">Antonin Scalia</a> wrote in the majority opinion that the CWA wording "'best technology available,' even with the added specification 'for minimizing adverse environmental impact,' does not unambiguously preclude cost-benefit analysis." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-Koons-4">[5]</a> Legal Times called the ruling a "pro-business decision," <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-5">[6]</a> but environmental groups pointed out that the ruling allowed, but did not mandate, that the EPA include a cost-benefit analysis. The ruling stated that, under the CWA, the EPA may require power plants to use "the technology that achieves the greatest reduction in adverse environmental impacts at a cost that can reasonably be borne by the industry." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-Koons-4">[5]</a>

The issue was relevant to older power plants. Newer plants are designed with closed-cooling systems that reduce the rate of killing small aquatic creatures by 98 percent, but "it is extremely costly to implement such systems at older plants" -- on the order of $3.5 billion annually. Less expensive cooling-system upgrades "would reduce the loss [of aquatic life] by 80 to 95 percent," reported the Washington Post. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-6">[7]</a>

In July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted EPA's request to take back part of a rule on cooling water intake structures relating to existing facilities so it can consider what might be appropriate requirements (ConocoPhillips v. EPA, 5th Cir., No. 06-60662, 7/23/10). Industries are particularly concerned about the requirements because of the high costs associated with retrofitting cooling towers. According to a 2010 report, "Special Reliability Scenario Assessment: Resource Adequacy Impacts of Potential U.S. Environmental Regulations" by the North American Electric Reliability Corp., an estimated 33 gigawatts to 36 gigawatts of generating capacity could be forced to be retired, depending on how stringent the cooling tower rule might be.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-7">[8]</a> A 2010 study by The Brattle Group, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.brattle.com/_documents/UploadLibrary/Upload898.pdf">"Potential Coal Plant Retirements Under Emerging Environmental Regulations"</a> found that 11,000 to 12,000 MW of coal power could retire if cooling towers are mandated. According to the report, if <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Scrubbers" title="Scrubbers">scrubbers</a> and cooling towers are required, it could shut down every merchant coal plant (plants that sell power into competitive wholesale markets) in the Texas ERCOT region.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-8">[9]</a>

<h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: Application to mountaintop removal mining">edit</a>] Application to mountaintop removal mining</h2>

On March 4, 2009, Representative <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Frank_Pallone" title="Frank Pallone">Frank Pallone</a> introduced H.R.1310, also known as the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Protection_Act" title="Clean Water Protection Act">Clean Water Protection Act</a>. The bill would amend the CWA, "to clarify that fill material" -- which "replaces portions of the waters of the United States with dry land or which changes the bottom elevation of a water body" -- "cannot be comprised of waste." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-9">[10]</a> According to a statement from Rep. Pallone's office, the bill "restores the prohibition on using waste as 'fill' that had been included in the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers" title="U.S. Army Corps of Engineers">U.S. Army Corps of Engineers</a>' regulations since 1977." The bill would restrict the practice of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mountaintop_removal_mining" title="Mountaintop removal mining" class="mw-redirect">mountaintop removal mining</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-fp-10">[11]</a>

In early May 2002, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers finalized changes to the definition of “fill material” that the corps can legally authorize to be dumped into streams, redefining mountaintop removal waste as “fill material” that the corps can permit to be dumped. The change came after federal Judge Charles H. Haden II of the Southern District of West Virginia's May 2 ruling that EPA and the corps don’t have authority to redefine mining waste as fill, thus undoing Haden's ruling.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-11">[12]</a>

"It is unacceptable to allow the excess spoil from this type of mining to be dumped in mountain streams where it can pollute waterways, and in some cases potentially endanger the lives of area residents," Pallone was quoted as saying, in the statement. "The federal government should not continue to give massive mining companies a free pass to dump their waste into nearby streams, and should instead protect residents who have been negatively impacted by this activity for too long."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-fp-10">[11]</a>

At the beginning of April 2010, the EPA's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lisa_Jackson" title="Lisa Jackson">Lisa Jackson</a> laid out new mountaintop removal guidelines, which may put the breaks on the practice in Appalachia and elsewhere, where valleys are filled with mining debris. Jackson stated that valley fills likely violate Clean Water Act requirements in most cases.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-12">[13]</a>

In late June 2010, however, the U.S. EPA gave the Army Corps of Engineers a green light for the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pine_Creek_Mine" title="Pine Creek Mine">Pine Creek Mine</a> permit, a mountaintop removal mining site located in Logan County, W.Va. The permit was the first decision the EPA issued under its new mountaintop mining guidelines. Environmentalists argued that the new MTR guidelines were understood to provide greater protection for headwater streams by curbing the practice of dumping waste in neighboring valleys to create what is known as valley fills.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-13">[14]</a>

<h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Application to various bodies of water">edit</a>] Application to various bodies of water</h2>

On April 2, 2009, Senator <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Russell_Feingold" title="Russell Feingold" class="mw-redirect">Russell Feingold</a> introduced S.787, also known as the "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Restoration_Act" title="Clean Water Restoration Act">Clean Water Restoration Act</a>." The bill would amend the CWA, to "clarify the jurisdiction of the United States" and establish the CWA's application to U.S. waters, including interstate wetlands, tributaries, territorial seas, "intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds." The bill is in reaction to two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159, 2001) and Rapanos v. United States (547 U.S. 715, 2006), which the bill blames for "confusion, permitting delays, increased costs, litigation, and reduced protections for waters of the United States." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-14">[15]</a>

A press release from Sen. Feingold's office states that "rivers, streams and wetlands, which were long protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA) ... are now in jeopardy of losing protections," because of the two Supreme Court decisions. "Every day Congress fails to reaffirm Clean Water Act protections, more and more waters are stripped of their protections, jeopardizing the drinking water of millions of Americans, as well as our nation's wildlife habitats, recreational pursuits, agricultural and industrial uses, and public health," Feingold is quoted in the statement as saying. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-15">[16]</a>

<h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=5" title="Edit section: Application to Maine dams">edit</a>] Application to Maine dams</h3>

In 2005, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hunton%26_Williams" title="Hunton & Williams">Hunton & Williams</a> filed a "friend of the court" (amici curiae) brief, on behalf of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Home_Builders&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="National Association of Home Builders (page does not exist)">National Association of Home Builders</a> and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Environmental_and_Economic_Progress" title="Foundation for Environmental and Economic Progress">Foundation for Environmental and Economic Progress</a>. The brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (547 U.S. 370, 2006), in support of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S.D._Warren_Company&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="S. D. Warren Company (page does not exist)">S. D. Warren Company</a>. The company, which operates hydroelectric dams in Maine, argued that the Clean Water Act did not require it to seek water quality certifications from the state government, when renewing its federal licenses with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_Energy_Regulatory_Commission" title="Federal Energy Regulatory Commission">Federal Energy Regulatory Commission</a>. The Supreme Court disagreed. Maine's Board of Environmental Protection had required the company to maintain a "minimum stream flow and to allow passage for certain fish and eels." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-16">[17]</a>

The brief -- co-authored by Hunton's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Virginia_S.Albrect&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Virginia S. Albrect (page does not exist)">Virginia S. Albrect</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Karma_B.Brown&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Karma B. Brown (page does not exist)">Karma B. Brown</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kathy_Robb" title="Kathy Robb">Kathy Robb</a>, the director of the firm's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Water_Policy_Institute" title="Water Policy Institute">Water Policy Institute</a> -- supported S. D. Warren Company, arguing that requiring the company to obtain water quality certifications from the Maine government "improperly expands the CWA," or Clean Water Act. The brief compared water passing through a dam to water "stirred by a spoon, pushed by an oar, or splashed by a hand," arguing that "such movements of water" should not trigger application of the Clean Water Act. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-17">[18]</a>

<h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=6" title="Edit section: Effort to close loopholes in Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act">edit</a>] Effort to close loopholes in Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act</h3>

On March 14, 2013 Congressman Matt Cartwright (PA) and Congressman Jared Polis (CO) introduced two bills in the U.S. House of Representatives to close loopholes in the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Air_Act" title="Clean Air Act">Clean Air Act</a> and Clean Water Act for fracking operations. he two bills introduced today—titled the “Bringing Reductions to Energy’s Airborne Toxic Health Effects”, or BREATHE Act, and the “Focused Reduction of Effluence and Stormwater runoff through Hydrofracking Environmental Regulation,” or <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/FRESHER_Act" title="FRESHER Act">FRESHER Act</a>.

Specifically, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/BREATHE_Act" title="BREATHE Act">BREATHE Act</a>, introduced by the two Congressmen and at least 32 co-sponsors, would close a loophole in the Clean Air Act that currently allows the oil and gas industry to release large amounts of pollution into the air, and lists hydrogen sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant. The FRESHER Act, introduced by Congressmen Cartwright and Polis and at least 37 co-sponsors, would close a loophole in the Clean Water Act that exempts the oil and gas industry from permitting requirements for industrial stormwater runoff.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_note-18">[19]</a>

<h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=7" title="Edit section: Articles and resources">edit</a>] Articles and resources</h2>

<h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=8" title="Edit section: Related SourceWatch articles">edit</a>] Related SourceWatch articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Air_Act" title="Clean Air Act">Clean Air Act</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Restoration_Act" title="Clean Water Restoration Act">Clean Water Restoration Act</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hunton_%26_Williams" title="Hunton & Williams">Hunton & Williams</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mountaintop_removal" title="Mountaintop removal">Mountaintop removal</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="U.S. Environmental Protection Agency">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Water_Policy_Institute" title="Water Policy Institute">Water Policy Institute</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Water_wars" title="Water wars">Water wars</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/WWF_and_Coca_Cola%27s_$20_million_Water_Deal" title="WWF and Coca Cola's $20 million Water Deal">WWF and Coca Cola's $20 million Water Deal</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Smithfield_Foods" title="Smithfield Foods">Smithfield Foods</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Meat_%26_Dairy_industry" title="Meat & Dairy industry">Meat & Dairy industry</a></li>

</ul>

<li id="cite_note-EPA_summary-0">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-EPA_summary_0-0">1.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-EPA_summary_0-1">1.1</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/cwa.html">Summary of the Clean Water Act</a>," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website, accessed April 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-cwis-1">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-cwis_1-0">2.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-cwis_1-1">2.1</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/rulegate.nsf/byRIN/2040-AE95">"Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures"</a> EPA Website, accessed July 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-2">↑</a> Cassandra Sweet, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703961104575226041502104432.html">"California Rules Restrict Power Plants' Marine Water Use"</a> The Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-3">↑</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf">SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: ENTERGY CORP. v. RIVERKEEPER, INC., ET AL. - CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT</a>," No. 07–588. Argued December 2, 2008; Decided April 1, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-Koons-4">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-Koons_4-0">5.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-Koons_4-1">5.1</a> Jennifer Koons, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/02/02greenwire-groups-debate-supreme-courts-power-plant-rulin-10424.html">Groups debate Supreme Court's power plant ruling</a>," New York Times, April 2, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-5">↑</a> Tony Mauro, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429585545">Supreme Court Strengthens Arbitration in Labor Case Ruling</a>," Legal Times, April 2, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-6">↑</a> Robert Barnes, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040103717.html">EPA Can Weigh Cost-Benefits in Environmental Action, Court Says</a>," Washington Post, April 2, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-7">↑</a> Andrew Childers, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.awma.org/pressroom/index.html?id=2156">"Electric Companies Said to Need Time to Implement Environmental Rules"</a> Air and Waste Management Association, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-8">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/7090670155/articles/powergenworldwide/coal-generation/emissions-control/2010/12/EPA-coal-retirements.html">"EPA rules could spark $180bn in upgrades, 67,000 MW of coal-fired retirements"</a> Power-Gen, Dec. 8, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-9">↑</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.1310:">H.R.1310</a>," Library of Congress Thomas website, accessed April 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-fp-10">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-fp_10-0">11.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-fp_10-1">11.1</a> Press release, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.house.gov/list/press/nj06_pallone/pr_mar4_mountaintopremoval.html">Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Prohibit Dumping Industrial Waste into Rivers and Streams</a>," Rep. Frank Pallone's office, March 4, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-11"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-11">↑</a> Ken Ward Jr., <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://wvgazette.com/News/MiningtheMountains/200206070003">"Democrats blast Bush mine policy"</a> Charleston Gazette, June 7, 2002.</li>

<li id="cite_note-12"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-12">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/01/obama-administration-mining">"New regulations will put an end to mountaintop mining"</a> Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian Online, April 1, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-13"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-13">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2010/06/29/epas-new-guidelines-promising-strict-enforcement-of-mountaintop-removal-not-so-strict/">"EPA’s New Guidelines Promising Strict Enforcement of Mountaintop Removal…. Not So Strict"</a> It's Getting Hot in Here, June 30, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-14"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-14">↑</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S787:">S.787</a>," Library of Congress Thomas website, accessed April 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-15"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-15">↑</a> Press release, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=311001">Feingold Reintroduces Effort to Protect the Drinking Water of Over 100 Million Americans</a>," Sen. Russ Feingold's office, April 2, 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-16"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-16">↑</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1527.ZS.html">Syllabus: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: S. D. WARREN CO. v. MAINE BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION et al.</a>, Certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine; No. 04–1527. Argued February 21, 2006 - Decided May 15, 2006," available via the Cornell University Law School website, accessed February 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-17"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-17">↑</a> Duane Desiderio, Thomas Jon Ward and Felicia Watson of the National Association of Home Builders, with Virginia Albrecht, Karma Brown and Kathy Robb of Hunton & Williams LLP, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.eswr.com/sdwarren/sdwnahbamic.pdf">Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Home Builders and Foundation for Environmental and Economic Progress, in Support of Petitioner (pdf)</a>," filed with the U.S. Supreme Court November 23, 2005.</li>

<li id="cite_note-18"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Water_Act#cite_ref-18">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.waterworld.com/news/2013/03/14/fresher-and-breathe-acts-introduced-to-close-fracking-loopholes.html">"FRESHER and BREATHE Acts Introduced to Close Fracking Loopholes"</a> Water World, March 14, 2013.</li>

</ol>

<h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=10" title="Edit section: External resources">edit</a>] External resources</h3>

<ul>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf">Text of the Clean Water Act (pdf)</a></li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/fwatrpo.html">Summary of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)</a>, on the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S.Fish%26_Wildlife_Service&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (page does not exist)">U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service</a> website</li>

<li>"<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/">Introduction to the Clean Water Act</a>," from the EPA's Watershed Academy</li>

<li>"<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act">Clean Water Act</a>" on Wikipedia.org</li>

</ul>

<h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Water_Act&action=edit&section=11" title="Edit section: External articles">edit</a>] External articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._Department_of_Justice" title="U.S. Department of Justice">U.S. Department of Justice</a>, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/August97/331enr.htm">Smithfield Foods Fined $12.6 Million in Largest Clean Water Act Fine Ever</a>," News Release, August 1997.</li>

<li>U.S. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="Environmental Protection Agency" class="mw-redirect">Environmental Protection Agency</a>, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/135261f4d1edd40885257359003d4807/c7a68726816ff7b3852567ef0053e790%21OpenDocument">Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Against Smithfield Foods for Polluting Virginia River</a>," News Release, September 1999.</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://media-newswire.com/release_1051786.html">"EPA, Army Corps Issue Joint Guidance to Sustain Wetlands Protection under Supreme Court Decision,"</a> Media Newswire, June 5, 2007.</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-05-2007/0004602623&EDATE=">"Administration Falls Short in Protecting Wetlands: Congress Must Act. Statement of Bob Perciasepe, Audubon Chief Operating Officer,"</a>PRNewswire-USNewswire, June 5, 2007.</li>

<li>Lisa Lambert, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0531003820070605">"U.S. adopts limits on clean water law enforcement,"</a> Reuters, June 5, 2007.</li>

<li>Josef Hebert, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060501568.html">"EPA Makes It Harder to Protect Wetlands,"</a> Associated Press (Washington Post), June 5, 2007.</li>

</ul>

</div>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Energy" title="Category:Energy">Energy</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Coal_Issues" title="Category:Coal Issues">Coal Issues</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Environment" title="Category:Environment">Environment</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Water" title="Category:Water">Water</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:United_States" title="Category:United States">United States</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Agriculture" title="Category:Agriculture">Agriculture</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:U.S._government" title="Category:U.S. government">U.S. government</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

===

---

It's hard to imagine," Karl Coplan, a law professor at Pace University in New York, said during a press call Wednesday. "But you couldn't show your face in Congress if you were against environmental protection. It was so different than what we see today."

Three major environmental laws came in fairly quick succession during the years following <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/silent-spring-50-pesticide-big-ag_n_1920181.html" target="hplink">Rachel Carson's Silent Spring,</a> considered by many to be the clarion call of the modern environmental movement, and the first <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/22/earth-day-2012-successes_n_1434352.html" target="hplink">Earth Day</a>: the <a href="http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/" target="hplink">National Environmental Policy Act</a> and the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/" target="hplink">Clean Air Act</a>, both in 1970, then the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html" target="_hplink">Clean Water Act</a> in 1972.

"I like to think the third was the charm," Coplan said.

Coplan recalled while growing up in New York how anyone who fell into the Hudson River was immediately sent to the hospital for shots. "Now there's an annual swim all the way around Manhattan," he said. "It's all a direct result of the implementation of the Clean Water Act."

Of course, the country's waterways still have a long way to go. An estimated one-third of American waters <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/Press_Releases/April_27_2011" target="hplink">remain unfit for swimming</a> -- down from two-thirds before the act. As The Huffington Post <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/sewage-pollution-clean-water-act_n_1916365.html" target="hplink">reported last month</a>, some urban waters continue to be exceedingly smelly and unsightly -- complete with floating condoms and tampons as well as toxic chemicals.

But people like Coplan worry that the progress made may well be reversed.

"Unfortunately, the House Republicans and corporate interests are fighting hard to roll back the Clean Water Act," Steve Fleischli, senior attorney for water programs at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, said on Wednesday's call. "They want to defund the EPA so it can't implement or enforce the law as it's written."

Fleischli pointed to threatened protections for wetlands and streams, the source of drinking water for <a href="http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/surface_drinking_water_index.cfm" target="_hplink">117 million</a> people in the continental United States.

The problem list, according to advocates, includes stalled storm-water protections, restricted funds to determine if <a href="http://www.waccamawtimes.com/news/DHEC-sued-over-ash-permits" target="hplink">coal ash</a> is a hazardous waste and inadequate oversight of expanded <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/fracking-pollution-pennsylvania_n_1982320.html" target="hplink">natural gas drilling</a>.

Scott Edwards, co-director of Food and Water Justice at the nonprofit Food and Water Watch, highlighted another common concern: a tendency of the government to "let industrial agriculture off the hook."

While the Clean Water Act has generally been successful in reducing pollution from industrial and municipal sources such as power plants and sewers, Edwards added in a conversation with The Huffington Post that it's done little for agricultural runoff -- <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesticides-gmo-monsanto-roundup-resistance_n_1936598.html" target="hplink">chemicals applied to crops</a> or <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/antibiotic-resistance-environment-livestock_n_1502749.html" target="hplink">manure from factory farms</a>....

Environmental advocates argue that the <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/watersentinels/downloads/CleanWaterActFactSheet.pdf" target="_hplink">scope of the law has narrowed </a>in recent years due to misguided Supreme Court decisions and confusing regulatory guidance. And they say it will erode further if Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney wins the presidential race.

In discussing <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/blog/agricultural-prosperity-mitt-romneys-vision-vibrant-rural-america" target="hplink">agricultural policy</a>, Romney highlights President Barack Obama's "overzealous efforts to extend the Clean Water Act to rainwater in <a href="http://farmprogress.com/story-still-more-clean-water-act-regs-farms-0-62930" target="hplink">ditches</a>."

His plan would require Congress to approve new major regulations proposed by federal agencies, as part of an effort to reverse what he calls "the <a href="http://www.soygrowers.com/newsroom/releases/documents/Compiled%20Presidential%20Questionnaire%20Answers.pdf" target="_hplink">massive overregulation</a> that President Obama has pursued."

"A Romney Administration will appoint strong leaders to handle regulatory agencies," the Romney Campaign responded to <a href="http://www.soygrowers.com/newsroom/releases/documents/Compiled%20Presidential%20Questionnaire%20Answers.pdf" target="_hplink">questions from the American Soybean Association</a>. "These leaders will be chosen because they understand the private sector."

During Tuesday's debate, Romney frequently touted his "life in the private sector," but his first private sector client is probably the most despised company among proponents of clean water: Monsanto, the manufacturer of products like Agent Orange and Roundup weed killer. <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/169885/mitt-romney-monsanto-man#" target="_hplink">The Nation reported in September</a> that the "romance between Romney and Monsanto" began in 1977 and continues today with Monsanto friends and partners currently packing his 11-member Agricultural Advisory Committee.

The Obama administration isn't void of Big Ag ties either, as reflected by the appointment of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, a major Monsanto supporter during his time as the governor of Iowa....

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/clean-water-act-politics-congress-romney-obama_n_1986962.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/clean-water-act-politics-congress-romney-obama_n_1986962.html</a>

==

<h1 class="title-blog">40 Years Later: Clean Water at a Crossroads</h1>

<div class="blog_padding relative" style=" padding-top: 15px;">Posted: 10/18/2012</div>

</div>

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-alt/clean-water-act-b_1980076.html?view=print&comm_ref=false">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-alt/clean-water-act-b_1980076.html?view=print&comm_ref=false</a>

Forty years ago today, Congress passed the Clean Water Act in response to citizens' demands to stop the pollution of our rivers, lakes and streams. But like many big birthdays, the Clean Water Act's 40th is both a moment for celebration and a reminder of work yet to be done.

In the last four decades, we have made progress towards clean water. Our rivers are no longer catching on fire, and we can now swim and fish in many more of our waterways.

But we still have a long way to go. The majority of Americans live within 10 miles of a polluted river, lake, stream or coastal waters. <a href="http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/corporate-agribusiness-and-america%E2%80%99s-waterways" target="hplink">Pollution from industrial agribusiness</a> plagues waters from the Mississippi River to the Chesapeake Bay, where massive dead zones encompass up to a third of its waters every summer. Moreover, we still have billions of gallons of sewage overflows and thousands of beach closings and advisories each year. In addition, industrial sources still discharge more than<a href="http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Wasting%20Our%20Waterways%20vUS.pdf" target="hplink"> 200 million pounds </a>of toxic substances directly into our waters each year.

And in the 21st century, our waters face a grave new threat: across the nation, a frack-fueled drilling boom is putting our water at risk in several ways. <a href="http://www.environmentamerica.org/news/ame/costs-fracking-environment-america-research-policy-center-documents-dollars-drained-dirty" target="_hplink">Fracking </a>produces billions of gallons of contaminated wastewater laced with toxics like benzene, heavy metals, and even radioactive material. This wastewater has contaminated drinking water sources from Pennsylvania to New Mexico. In addition, frack fluid chemicals are leaking and spilling into streams and creeks, and methane and other substances are contaminating nearby residents' drinking water wells. Finally, with nearly a million gallons of water used in each frack job, this dirty drilling is placing an added strain on water resources.

Clearly, we need stronger rules and policies to safeguard our water. Yet two obstacles bar the path to tougher protections. First, our nation's clean water laws are now hampered by significant loopholes and exemptions. The very reach of the Clean Water Act has been undermined by a set of court decisions. As a result, nearly 60 percent of our streams -- including those feeding drinking water sources for 117 million Americans -- may no longer be protected. This loophole has hobbled literally hundreds of enforcement cases against known polluters. Similarly, despite its wide-ranging damage, <a href="http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/FS_OilGasExemptions.pdf" target="_hplink">fracking is exempt</a> from key provisions of several laws designed to protect our water and our health -- including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.

Second, big polluters--from oil and gas to mega-agribusiness -- are working to further undermine the laws and regulations that protect our waterways. For example, in the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives voted <a href="http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=legislative-database-anti-environment&legislation=All&topic=All&statute=All&agency=All" target="_hplink">no fewer than 38 times</a> to dismantle the Clean Water Act, including passing a package of clean water act attacks as the last vote before they adjourned for elections.

Thus, at the 40-year mark, clean water stands at a crossroads. To truly protect our rivers, streams, and drinking water, we will need to overcome these two obstacles -- to reverse the loopholes in our laws and to confront and turn back the heavy guns of polluting interests in Washington. And as with the passage of the Clean Water Act itself, it will take nothing less than the sustained effort of citizens raising their voices to do so.

In April 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a draft guidance aimed at restoring the Clean Water Act's protections to all of our nation's waters. But while industry has sought to derail this effort, Environment America and our allies have demonstrated that citizens still want stronger protections for our waters, not weaker ones. More than 300,000 individuals -- plus hundreds of elected officials, farmers, and small businesses -- have all voiced support for EPA's move.

But even after we restore the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act -- and I believe we will -- there is much more we must do to protect our rivers, lakes, and streams. We need new rules to rein in pollution from factory farms, new standards to curb runoff pollution and sewage overflows, and the political will to enforce the protections we have. And for every one of these steps, it will take a concerted effort of citizens to make it happen.

So on its 40th birthday, here is the best present we can give to the Clean Water Act: our commitment that we will always be here to fight for clean water -- for the next 40 years and beyond.

Follow Margie Alt

</div>

</div></div></div>

Clean Water Act

Attachments