The Clean Water Act: What You Need to Know

The main objective of the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1962 was to restore and maintain the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the Nation’s water resource. As a result of industrialization and subsequently urbanization, there has been stress on the nation’s water resource and therefore reducing the availability of clean water. Water pollution poses a great concern to humans, aquatic organisms, plants, and the climate which also alters the ecosystem. According to the Clean Water Act, the term pollutant means solid waste, sewage, dredged spoil, garbage, chemical wastes, incinerator residue, munitions, radioactive materials, sewage sludge, heat, biological materials, wrecked or discarded sand, cellar dirt, rock, equipment, and agricultural, municipal, and industrial waste that is discharged into water. The CWA has established the basic structure that regulates the discharges of pollutants into the nation’s water. It also regulates the quality standards for surface water. 

Examination of the Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act originated from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments that were done in 1972 establishing the structure of the CWA. It was then refined and refocused by the Clean Water Amendments of 1977 where it got its name. The regulatory focus of the Act is in the discharge of pollutants from point sources to surface water specifically targeting the industrial facilities, agricultural farms, and municipal sewage treatment plants. Therefore, the objectives of the act were to eliminate the discharge of toxic substances into water bodies immediately, do away with all types of water pollution, and make sure that all surface water was safe (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). The Act refers to the municipal sewage treatment plants as publicly owned treatment works. Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, the United States has spent over $1.9 trillion in an aim to minimize pollution in lakes, oceans, rivers, and other surface waters and hence exceeding costs of other U.S. environmental initiatives (Dirth, 2017). The investments are to meet the requirements of the 1972 Clean Water Act and other voluntary efforts aimed at controlling pollution from industries, urban runoffs, and agricultural industry. 

Major Provisions of the Clean Water Act 

The CWA specifically prohibits the discharge of any pollutant to surface water from a point source unless the discharge is done in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the statute. The CWA laid the foundation of the implementation of the technology-based regulation that was aimed at replacing the ambient-based system. The technology-based limits are laid down by the EPA to set standards nationally. The act tied emissions limits that were to regulate industry waste management following other proven technologies that were to minimize water pollution (Raff & Earnhart, 2019). The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System was a permit system that was tied to the limits. In the implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, states issue permits directly to the industries although in some instances the EPA regional office can issue the permits. The process of an industry receiving a permit is lengthy and it includes detailed information about the limits of effluents, the requirements on reporting and monitoring, and other specific conditions that are related to the particular industry. 

Amendments of the Clean Water Act 

The amendment of 1977 increased the number of materials from the initial 63 chemicals to 126 materials which were identified as toxic by the EPA. The amendments also addressed other sources of water pollution that were unrecognized during the enactment of the act. It included municipal stormwater and other new sources like the land application of manure from Confined Animal Feeding Operations. The amendments in 1981 were aimed at streamlining the municipal construction grant processes and increasing the capacity of treatment plants that were established under the program. The subsequent amendments that were done in 1987 removed the grants given for the construction program and replaced it with the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (Schisler, 2020). The new funding system played a key role in addressing the needs of water quality by creating EPA-state partnerships. Other laws such as Title I of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act impacted the landscape of the CWA. 

The Overall Effectiveness of the Clean Water Act in Protecting Water Resources in the U.S. 

Although the Clean Water Act has high costs of implementation, there are large benefits associated with it. Before the act in the early 20th century, there were high mortalities that were related to water-borne diseases and conditions such as typhoid and cholera. The protection of water bodies from pollution has provided outdoor recreation activities such as swimming, increased industrial and agricultural production, and commercial fishing (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). However, there are controversies associated with the activities such as the ratio of costs to the benefits and the effectiveness of the act in reducing water pollution. It is estimated that about half of the nation’s rivers and streams violate United States’ water quality standards although there is no data showing that the water was cleaner before the Clean Water Act. Another controversy is on the value for money as it is argued that the costs exceed the benefits. The high costs are as a result of over ambitiousness of the politicians whose target was to makes all nation’s waters swimmable and fishable by 1983 and to have zero water pollution by 1985. 

Ethical Problems and how they are addressed in the act 

Industries and farmers in the agricultural sector have an ethical responsibility under the CWA to ensure that they discharge their wastes responsibly without polluting the water bodies. They have been tasked with creating systems that ensure that there are no pollutants that get to the water bodies. It is therefore their ethical responsibility to ensure the nation’s water resource is clean for human use and for the ecosystem. The Act has adequately addressed the ethical problem by clearly indicating the responsibilities of every player responsible for water pollution. 

Political Problems and how they are addressed in the Act 

The main problem with the implementation of the Clean Water Act is politics whereby the politicians have a conflict of interest in formulating policies and amendments to the law. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 removed the Clean Water Act regulation for about half of the U.S. streams and rivers. The Obama administration in 2015 proposed a Clean Water Rule whose objective was to reinstate the laws. However, most states sued to vacate from the rule. The Act, however, has not adequately addressed the political problem as politicians are able to manipulate the law where there is a lacuna to advance their interests. 

Social Problems and how they are addressed in the Act 

There is a significant problem in the social management of water pollution. Society is responsible for the small but significant water pollution. Household wastes are discharged into the water sources and thereby polluting the water. The act has focused on the large pollutants but has neglected the small community-based pollutions that have a significant effect on the quality of water. 

Changes that would make the Act More Effective 

The Clean Water Act should be amended to address the non-point sources of pollution such as paved areas and clear cuts, abandoned mines, fields and lawns, and septic tanks. This role has been left to states and local governments and therefore there are no clear standards of how these issues should be addressed. The amendment should create a legal framework that will replace the voluntary management practices that are currently used. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the Clean Water Act has proven to be significantly effective in controlling and reducing pollution discharge from industrial and municipal. The act has provided the basic structure that regulates the discharges of pollutants into water sources. It has also regulated the quality standards of surface water. The EAP, under the CWA, has been able to implement water pollution control programs that have set standards for industries. The provisions of the CWA have made it unlawful for all pollutants from a point source to a water source unless a permit within the act is issued. 

References 

Dirth, E. M. (2017). Successful Agriculture and Clean Water: A Workable Path Forward for Regulating Drainage Districts as Point Sources under the Clean Water Act.  Iowa L. Rev. ,  103 , 1213. 

Keiser, D. A., & Shapiro, J. S. (2019). Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the demand for water quality.  The Quarterly Journal of Economics ,  134 (1), 349-396. 

Raff, Z., & Earnhart, D. (2019). The effects of Clean Water Act enforcement on environmental employment.  Resource and Energy Economics ,  57 , 1-17. 

Schisler, R. (2020). Shortcomings of the Clean Water Act and Potential for Progress in the Chesapeake Bay.