Introduction and thesis
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the basis of water protection and quality in the US. The act does not necessarily deal with ground water or water quantity issues. Some states have decided to establish standards that address groundwater quality and stream flow in particular. The statute utilizes several regulatory and non-regulatory techniques to adequately reduce pollutant discharges into water bodies, institute considerate water quality standards, fund municipal waste water management facilities and manage contaminated runoff. These techniques are utilized to attain the broader goal of reinstating and preserving the biological, chemical and physical veracity of the country’s waters so that it can encourage “the safety and preservation of marine life”. The CWA was endorsed in 1948 where it was identified as the “Federal Water Pollution Act” but expanded and modified in 1972 and given a new name “Clean Water Act.”
Examination of Clean Water Act
One of the most polluted rivers in the US was the Cuyahoga River. From Akron to Cleveland, the river lacked fish during the q50s and 60s. At least 13 fires were recorded to have occurred on the Cuyahoga River. The first one was in 1868 while the largest one happened in 1952 where more than $1 million in damage was recorded damaging the boats and the riverfront building. Similarly, in 1969 another fire broke capturing the attention of the times magazine which termed the Cuyahoga river as a river that oozes rather than streaming and where a person cannot drown but decay ( Adler, 2010) . As a result, the public was mobilized and concerned about the pollution activities that led to the “Clean Water Act”.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are key CWA elements that are crucial in safeguarding of water bodies. First, the Water Quality Standards (WQS) is coherent with the CWA statutory goals. All waters are obligated to have designations for how they are utilized and narrative/numeric criteria that back up those uses. Implementation tools and anti-degradation guidelines are also required to make sure high quality is not lowered and that all waters should meet the minimum expectations of the water quality criteria ( Latham, 2010) . In order to meet the WQS, the anti-degradation strategies and enactment tools should be used to ensure that water quality is standard. Ambient monitoring is necessary to ensure that all the regulations are met at all times. Over the years numerous laws
Major descriptions to the provisions and amendments to the act
Designated uses (DU) were designed in the WQS for every water body/segment if they are attained or not. A designated use, in this case, can be described as the specified use of water bodies and whether these conditions are met. Typically the DU assignment to a water body manifests the question of what the public would use the water body for ( Adler, 2010) . Some of the DUs are water skiing, swimming, irrigation, industrial purposes; wind surfing, boating, commercial or subsistence fishing, drinking, and other uses. Anti-degradation regulations is an integral aspect that ensures all waters continue to uphold their designated uses, waters that have high quality are safeguarded unless the benefits could lead to additional degradation and highly quality and valued waters are not polluted at all.
Amendments to the Clean Water Act
The 1972 Amendments
launched the core structure for pollutant discharges regulation into the waters
EPA was given the authority on executing pollution control programs for putting wastewater standards for all industries
sustained existing conditions to set WQS for all pollutants in waters
prohibited any individual to emit pollutants in waters unless in possession of a permit which was attained under the regulations
the Construction Grants Program financed the building of sewage management agencies
acknowledged the importance of coming up with ideas to deal with the critical issue caused by nonpoint source pollution
Another amendment was revised in 1981 and it addressed The Municipal Construction Grants procedures and refining the competencies of treatment agencies ( Adler, 2010) . In 1987 The Construction Grants Program was removed and interchanged to the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund which is normally referred as the “Clean Water State Revolving Fund.” This fund policy addressed the needs to ensure quality of water by developing EPA-State alliances.
Evaluation the overall effectiveness of the act in protecting our air or water resources
In 1972 the Clean Water Act was executed to protect all the water bodies in the US. To this day, the CWA continues to be a primary tool for protecting the US water. The statute has been of great importance since its implementation. However, for over a decade approximately 2 million streamlines and 20 million wetland acres have been at a higher risk of destruction and pollution due to two convolution court verdicts and subsequent agency assistance ( Gray & Shimshack, 2011) .
The Environmental Protection Agency in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers recommended a landmark rule that clarified the CWA protection of many but not all wetlands, streams and other water bodies that are essential to wildlife and fish in most communities as well as the economy. This rule bases on the best scientific knowledge of the wetlands and streams science. This rule aims at promoting the protection of all the American waters ( Adler, 2010) . Unfortunately, several industry groups have stood firm to fight this change so that pollution of the wetlands and streams continue.
The social, ethical, political problem associated with the act.
One of the social problems that the CWA has not addressed adequately is the issue of non-point source pollution. The statute left the control of the element of water pollution to the state, and these authorities have utilized voluntary management procedures rather than the traditional regulations. As a result, numerous problems have come up posed by industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. ( Cullingworth & Caves 2013). These issues have evolved to become one of the country’s number one sources of pollution. People from all social circles are affected by this problem.
`A political problem facing the CWA is inadequate financing, permit compliance and state enforcement. The EPAs effort to address the limitations that arise due to insufficient funds has remained unsolved. The government has been anemic to address issues raised by people and agencies about water pollution ( Adler, 2010) . A lot of changes have occurred over the years and this call for alterations in the CWA to suit the current situation. Government reluctance contributes to one of the reasons that the streams and wetlands continues to be contaminated.
An ethical concern that ought to be highlighted the hampering of the citizen suit. Private attorney generals who have tried to enforce against past violations have been ignored. Additionally the WQS program has concentrated on the chemical integrity of the country’s waters giving less attention to the environmental flows ( Cullingworth & Caves 2013) . The Congress has been incapable of endorsing any positive legislation related to CWA from 1987. The current forecasts of the passage of sound strategies proposed by individuals and private attorney generals remain poor and questionable.
Evaluate whether the act has effectively addressed the social, ethical, and political problems described above
The social, ethical and political problems addressed above have not been adequately addressed. These problems continue to affect individuals as well as the whole country in general. Emission of pollutants in the water bodies continues to be a big problem. The government has failed to deal with the non-point source pollution leading to health problems and endangerment to the marine life ( Latham, 2010) . Finances to fund projects that are meant to improve on the CWA and its implementation is inadequate. The failure of the Congress to endorse positive legislations over the years has highlighted its inconsistency. Private agencies that come up with positive strategies are not given a platform to highlight their views and opinions. Therefore there is a necessity for the government to address these issues before they evolve to become a nation disaster.
Recommendation of one change that would make the act more effective
Basing on the EPAs and Corps unwillingness to adopt new jurisdictional principles that limit the scope of the CWA, the Congress should explicitly state jurisdiction under the CWA. A description of which waters are protected will eliminate uncertainty and decrease enforcement costs. For such modifications to be attained the federal officials should recognize there are limits of the federal authority ( Malloy, 2011) . They should also acknowledge that state and local government reliance is essential and legally required to protect all water bodies.
Conclusion
Three decades of CWA experience had demonstrated its strengths and deficiencies. The program was developed to safeguard the water bodies from pollution. The WQS outlines the water quality goals of any water body/portion. The DUs are set to ensure that regulations are observed to safeguard the public welfare and health. It also promotes the quality of water, and it serves the objective of the CWA. The aim of the CWA to sustain and preserve the, biological chemical, physical and integrity of the water bodies to tackle water pollution, CWA offers a variety of tools such as designated uses and anti-degradation policy
References
Adler, R. W. (2010). Resilience, Restoration, and Sustainability: Revisiting the Fundamental Principles of the Clean Water Act. Wash. UJL & Pol'y , 32 , 139
Cullingworth, J, B, & Caves R, (2013). Planning in the USA: policies, issues, and processes Routledge
Gray, W. B, & Shimshack J P, (2011). The effectiveness of environmental monitoring and enforcement: A review of the empirical evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , req017.
Latham, M. A. (2010). (Un) Restoring the Chemical, Physical, and Biological Integrity of our Nation's Waters: The Emerging Clean Water Act Jurisprudence of the Roberts Court. Va. Envtl LJ , 28 , 411
Malloy, B. A. (2011). Testing cooperative federalism: Water quality standards under the Clean Water Act Envtl & Energy L. & Pol'y J. , 6 , 63
