Difference between revisions of "Clean Water Act"

From CCoWS Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(History)
(Links)
 
(37 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].
+
An [[Summaries of Environmental Topics on the Central Coast of California|environmental summary]] created by the [[ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems]] class at [[CSUMB]].
 
+
===This Page is Under Construction===
+
  
 
==Summary==
 
==Summary==
Passed into law in 1972, the Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal federal law concerning health of navigable water in the U.S. This command-and-control style bill focuses on restoring and preserving the “chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” using technology based requirements<ref name = "FWP">Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, § 101(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (a).</ref>. It is a culmination of preceding water quality Acts, plus the addition of new requirements and means of enforceability. One major addition to previous requirements was the institution of higher limitations on effluent discharges from industrial sources<ref>Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, § 101(a)(l)-(2), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(l)-(2) (1982)</ref>. Similar guidelines were set for sewage treatment plants and newly constructed factories<ref>Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, 301(b)(1)(B), (2)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(b)(1)(B), (2)(B), amended by Pub. L. No. 97-117, § 21(b), 95 Stat. 1623, 1632 (1981)</ref>. Industries that discharged point source pollution, which is anything that comes from a pipe or ditch, were required to obtain permits before discharging into waterways<ref name="FWP"/>. Permits could only be received if the industry complied with the new CWA requirements<ref>Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, § 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)</ref>.  
+
Passed into law in 1972, the Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal federal law concerning the health of navigable waters in the United States. This command-and-control style bill focuses on restoring and preserving the “chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” using technology-based requirements<ref name = "FWP">Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, § 101(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (a).</ref>. It is a culmination of preceding water quality acts, combined with the addition of new requirements and means of enforcement. One major addition to previous requirements is the institution of stricter limitations on effluent discharges from industrial sources<ref>Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, § 101(a)(l)-(2), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(l)-(2) (1982)</ref>. Similar guidelines were set for sewage treatment plants and newly-constructed factories<ref>Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, 301(b)(1)(B), (2)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(b)(1)(B), (2)(B), amended by Pub. L. No. 97-117, § 21(b), 95 Stat. 1623, 1632 (1981)</ref>. Those who produce industrial discharge in the form of point source pollution, which includes any effluent from a traceable source such as a pipe or ditch, were required to obtain permits before discharging into waterways<ref name="FWP"/>. Permits are only issued if the industrial applicant complies with CWA requirements<ref>Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, § 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)</ref>.  
  
  
Origins of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, like stormwater and agricultural runoff, are harder to define, and thus harder to regulate. Section 208 requires the identification of NPS and possible solutions for controlling it, but the ability to manage these pollutants is still difficult for CA <ref>[1978 GAO] Staats EB, Comptroller General. 1978. Water quality management planning is not comprehensive and may not be effective for many years. Government Accountability Office. #CED-78-167.</ref> and other state legislatures.
+
Origins of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, like stormwater and agricultural runoff, are harder to define and thus more difficult to regulate. Section 208 of the CWA requires the identification of NPS pollution and possible solutions for controlling it, but the ability to manage these pollutants is still difficult for California <ref>[1978 GAO] Staats EB, Comptroller General. 1978. Water quality management planning is not comprehensive and may not be effective for many years. Government Accountability Office. #CED-78-167.</ref> and other state legislatures.
  
 
==History==  
 
==History==  
 
[[File:CuyahogaRiverFire.jpeg |300px|thumb|right|Historic photo from 1969 Cuyahoga fire actually from the 1952 fire. Author: Unknown]]  
 
[[File:CuyahogaRiverFire.jpeg |300px|thumb|right|Historic photo from 1969 Cuyahoga fire actually from the 1952 fire. Author: Unknown]]  
  
In 1969, the surface of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH, which in parts contained a thin layer of oil from cargo ship leaks, caught on fire. Though this was not the river’s first fire, it was the first to occur after the birth of the environmentalism movement. The combination of media coverage and a $100 million initiative to decontaminate the Cuyahoga in 1968<ref>[https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63 Rotman M. 2016. Cuyahoga river fire. Cleveland Historical]</ref>, created a moment of punctuated equilibrium, which pushed policy-makers to take action.  The momentum sparked here over environmental degradation led to the re-visioning of both the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Water Quality Act of 1965 into the still active CWA. Ironically, the media-circulated photos that generated the public outcry were not of the 1969 fire, but from one in 1952<ref>[http://time.com/3921976/cuyahoga-fire/ Latson J. 2015. The Burning River That Sparked a Revolution. Time History Magazine. [Cited on 05 April 2017]</ref>.
+
In 1969, the surface of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio - which, in parts, contained a thin layer of oil from cargo ship leaks - caught on fire. Though this was not the river’s first fire, it was the first to occur after the birth of the environmentalism movement. The combination of media coverage and a $100 million initiative to decontaminate the Cuyahoga in 1968<ref>[https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63 Rotman M. 2016. Cuyahoga river fire. Cleveland Historical]</ref> created a moment of punctuated equilibrium, which pushed policymakers to take action.  The momentum sparked over this example of environmental degradation led to the re-visioning of both the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Water Quality Act of 1965 into the still active CWA. Interestingly, the media-circulated photos that generated the public outcry over Cuyahoga were not of the 1969 fire, but from a fire on the same river in 1952<ref>[http://time.com/3921976/cuyahoga-fire/ Latson J. 2015. The Burning River That Sparked a Revolution. Time History Magazine. [Cited on 05 April 2017]</ref>.
  
 
===Previous Federal Laws and Regulations===
 
===Previous Federal Laws and Regulations===
Line 21: Line 19:
 
===History in California===
 
===History in California===
  
In 1967, the California State Legislature launched the [[State Water Resources Control Board]] (State Water Board) to protect water quality and allocate water to farmers and municipalities in ways that continue to maximize the protection of California state waters<ref name="SWRCB">[https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-quality-standards-regulations-california. Environmental Protection Agency. [Date unknown]. Water Quality Standards Regulations: California. [Cited on 03 April 2017]]</ref>. On a local level, nine [[Regional Water Quality Control Boards]] (Regional Boards) were created to implement the State's water quality goals and plans based on each regions geology, hydrology, climate and topography<ref name="SWRCB"/>.
+
In 1967, the California State legislature launched the [[State Water Resources Control Board]] (State Water Board) to protect water quality and allocate water to farmers and municipalities in ways that continue to maximize the protection of California state waters<ref name="SWRCB">[https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-quality-standards-regulations-california. Environmental Protection Agency. [Date unknown]. Water Quality Standards Regulations: California. [Cited on 03 April 2017]]</ref>. On a local level, nine [[Regional Water Quality Control Boards]] (Regional Boards) were created to implement the state's water quality goals and plans based on each region's geology, hydrology, climate and topography<ref name="SWRCB"/>.
  
 
===Previous State Laws and Regulations===
 
===Previous State Laws and Regulations===
Line 31: Line 29:
 
'''Rapanos v. United States'''<ref>[http://rcap.org/resource/about-the-clean-water-act/ Rural Community Assistance Partnership. [Date unknown]. About the Clean Water Act. [Cited on 04 April 2017]]]</ref>
 
'''Rapanos v. United States'''<ref>[http://rcap.org/resource/about-the-clean-water-act/ Rural Community Assistance Partnership. [Date unknown]. About the Clean Water Act. [Cited on 04 April 2017]]]</ref>
  
This 2006 ruling is considered by environmentalists to have weakened the Clean Water Act by (cutting)  eroding the country's water protection by half. John Rapanos was convicted of 2 felonies in the 1980s for converting 54 acres of wetland to a sand filled foundation for a shopping mall. He sued the government in 2006 stating that the Clean Water Act's definition of navigable waters was too vague. While Rapanos' charges were dropped, the Supreme Court was unable to come up with a more confining definition for what "navigable waters" are.
+
This 2006 ruling is considered by environmentalists to have weakened the Clean Water Act by cutting the country's water protection in half. John Rapanos was convicted of two felonies in the 1980s for converting 54 acres of wetland to a sand-filled foundation for a shopping mall. He sued the government in 2006 stating that the Clean Water Act's definition of navigable waters was too vague. While Rapanos' charges were dropped, the Supreme Court was unable to come up with a clearer legal definition for "navigable waters."
  
'''Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE)'''<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/159/case.html Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers. 531 U.S. 159. (2001).]</ref>
+
'''Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE)'''<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/159/case.html Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers. 531 U.S. 159. (2001).]</ref>
 
+
SWANCC had applied for permits to turn an old sand mining location into a landfill. ACE denied the permits on the basis that the site's excavated trenches had transformed into ponds which had become migratory bird habitat over time, which violated Section 404 of the CWA. In 2001, the Supreme Court decided that ACE had overstepped its legislative reach and that since the ponds were not connected to navigable waters, Section 404 could not be invoked.
+
  
 +
The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County, Illinois applied for permits to turn an old sand mining location into a landfill. Their application was denied by the [[U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)|Army Corps of Engineers (ACE)]] on the basis that excavated trenches on site had been transformed into ponds over time and now served as become migratory bird habitat. In 2001, the Supreme Court decided that ACE had overstepped its legislative reach in denying the permit because the ponds were not connected to navigable waters, and therefore ACE did not have jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA.
  
 
==Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution==
 
==Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution==
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution has historically been more difficult to manage than point source (PS) because it comes from more than one entity and is often dispersed over vast areas of land [citation needed]. As NPS runoff from stormwater, agriculture and industry traverses impervious street surfaces and compacted farm lands, it absorbs salts and oils, fertilizers, insecticides, and heavy metals that are ultimately carried diffusely into surface bodies of water<ref>[Withgott J. 2010. Environmental science: your world, your turn. Student edition. Pearson.]</ref>. This diffuseness has and continues to present the challenge of determining which group(s) should bear the financial burden of remediation.  
+
Historically, nonpoint source (NPS) pollution has been more difficult to manage than point source pollution because it is an accumulation of pollutants from multiple sources and is often dispersed over vast areas of land<ref> [https://www.epa.gov/nps/what-nonpoint-source U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted runoff: nonpoint source pollution]</ref>. As NPS runoff from stormwater, agriculture and industry traverses impervious street surfaces and compacted farm lands, it absorbs salts, oils, fertilizers, insecticides and heavy metals that are ultimately carried diffusely into bodies of surface water<ref>Withgott J. 2010. Environmental science: your world, your turn. Student edition. Pearson.</ref>. This diffuseness continues to present the challenge of determining which group(s) should bear the financial burden of remediation.  
  
====Federal NPS Management Agencies====
+
=====Federal NPS Management Agencies=====
*Environmental Protection Agency
+
*[[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)|Environmental Protection Agency]]
 +
*[[U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)|U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]]
  
===Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Callifornia===
+
===Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution in California===
The two main agencies in charge of creating California’s NPS management plan are the [[State Water Resources Control Board]] and the [[California Coastal Commission]]. After the introduction of Section 319 in 1987, these agencies developed the NPS plan using a watershed-based approach<ref>[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/plans_policies.shtml State Water Resources Control Board. 2015. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Plan: policies and plans. [Cited on 02 April 2017]]</ref>. A watershed-based approach considers the entire expanse that water travels within a given area, from where rain falls to where rivers or streams flow into larger water bodies, when making policy and management decisions<ref>[http://texaswater.tamu.edu/surface-water/watershed-water-quality-management.html Texas A&M University. [Date unknown]. Watershed approach to water quality management [Cited on 02 April 2017]]</ref>.
+
The two main agencies in charge of creating California’s NPS management plan are the [[State Water Resources Control Board]] and the [[California Coastal Commission]]. After the introduction of Section 319 of the CWA in 1987, these agencies developed the NPS plan using a watershed-based approach<ref>[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/plans_policies.shtml State Water Resources Control Board. 2015. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Plan: policies and plans. [Cited on 02 April 2017]]</ref>. A watershed-based approach takes into consideration the entire journey that water travels within a defined area - from where the rain first falls to its runoff into rivers or streams which flow into larger water bodies - when making policy and management decisions<ref>[http://texaswater.tamu.edu/surface-water/watershed-water-quality-management.html Texas A&M University. [Date unknown]. Watershed approach to water quality management [Cited on 02 April 2017]]</ref>.
  
 
====State NPS Management Agencies====
 
====State NPS Management Agencies====
*State Water Resources Control Board
+
*[[State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)|State Water Resources Control Board]]
*California Coastal Commission
+
*[[California Coastal Commission]]
 
+
  
 
==Section 303(d)==
 
==Section 303(d)==
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to list impaired waterways. An impaired waterway is a waterway in which the pollution control methods set in place are insufficient to maintain or achieve appropriate [[water quality]] standards. The state uses water quality data to determine if waterways meet water quality standards. For each waterway listed as impaired under Section 303(d), the state is required to establish a [[Total Maximum Daily Load]] (TMDL). TDMLs determine the daily loading capacity for each individual pollutant for a waterbody such that the waterway will meet the standards for that pollutant.<ref name="Overview of Impaired Waters"> [http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/intro.cfm#section303  EPA Section 303]</ref>. [[The 303d list of Impaired Waterbodies in the Monterey Bay Region]] is a resource for more information on the status of local water ways.
+
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to list their impaired waterways. An impaired waterway is one in which the pollution control methods set in place are insufficient to maintain or achieve appropriate [[water quality]] standards. The state uses water quality data to determine if waterways meet the state's standards. For each waterway listed as impaired, the state is required to establish a [[Total Maximum Daily Load]] (TMDL) for certain pollutants. TDMLs determine the daily loading capacity for each individual pollutant for a water body or waterway.<ref name="Overview of Impaired Waters"> [http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/intro.cfm#section303  EPA Section 303]</ref>. [[The 303d list of Impaired Waterbodies in the Monterey Bay Region]] is a resource for more information on the status of local waterways.
 
+
  
 
==Section 319==
 
==Section 319==
  
The mission of the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program, established by the 1987 amendments, is to assist the development and management of NPS projects at a local level. Grant money is made available to tribes, territories, and states conducting a variety of project, such as those  involving demonstration projects, education, technical assistance, transfer of technology, etc...<ref>[https://www.epa.gov/nps/319-grant-program-states-and-territories 319 Grant Program for States and Territories]</ref>
+
The mission of the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program, established by the 1987 amendments, is to assist the development and management of NPS projects at a local level. Grant money is made available to tribes, territories and states conducting a variety of projects, such as those  involving demonstration projects, education, technical assistance, transfer of technology, etc.<ref>[https://www.epa.gov/nps/319-grant-program-states-and-territories 319 Grant Program for States and Territories]</ref>
  
 
===Central Coast 319 Projects===
 
===Central Coast 319 Projects===
  
 
{| border="4"
 
{| border="4"
! style="background: #efefef;" colspan = "7" | Section 319 Projects in the Central Coast<ref>[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/grants/docs/completed_grants_apr11.pdf [CCRWQCB] Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011. Completed Grants/Programs. [Cited on 04April 2017]]</ref>, <ref>[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/about_us/docs/success/san_luisito_creek.pdf Jones A., Kitajima A. 2010. Riparian Fencing Reduces Bacterial Levels and Improves Habitat in Tributary to National Estuary. Central Coast Water Board and Morro Bay National Estuary Program</ref>, <ref>[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/grants/docs/apr2016_open_grants.pdf Central Coast Water Board. FY 15-16.  Grant Projects Managed by Region 3. [Cited on 04 April 2017]</ref>.
+
! style="background: #efefef;" colspan = "7" | Section 319 Projects in the Central Coast Region<ref>[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/grants/docs/completed_grants_apr11.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011. Completed Grants/Programs. [Cited on 04April 2017]]</ref>, <ref>[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/about_us/docs/success/san_luisito_creek.pdf Jones A., Kitajima A. 2010. Riparian Fencing Reduces Bacterial Levels and Improves Habitat in Tributary to National Estuary. Central Coast Water Board and Morro Bay National Estuary Program]</ref>, <ref>[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/grants/docs/apr2016_open_grants.pdf Central Coast Water Board. FY 15-16.  Grant Projects Managed by Region 3. [Cited on 04 April 2017]</ref>.
 
|-
 
|-
 
! style="background: #efefef;" width = “150pt” | Year
 
! style="background: #efefef;" width = “150pt” | Year
Line 75: Line 71:
 
!| 2000 - 2001
 
!| 2000 - 2001
 
!| Monterey Bay Regional Marketing Initiative
 
!| Monterey Bay Regional Marketing Initiative
!| Monterey County
+
!| [[Monterey County]]
 
|-
 
|-
 
!| 2001 - 2004
 
!| 2001 - 2004
Line 83: Line 79:
 
!| 2010
 
!| 2010
 
!| Riparian Fencing Reduces Bacterial Levels and Improves Habitat in Tributary to National Estuary
 
!| Riparian Fencing Reduces Bacterial Levels and Improves Habitat in Tributary to National Estuary
!| San Luisito Creek
+
!| [[San Luisito Creek]]
 
|-
 
|-
 
!| 2011 - 2016
 
!| 2011 - 2016
Line 91: Line 87:
 
!| 2013 - 2016
 
!| 2013 - 2016
 
!| Rural Roads Erosion Control Assistance Project
 
!| Rural Roads Erosion Control Assistance Project
!| Santa Cruz County
+
!| [[Santa Cruz County]]
 
|-
 
|-
 
!| 2016 - 2019
 
!| 2016 - 2019
 
!| [[Pajaro Watershed]] Livestock and Land Program
 
!| [[Pajaro Watershed]] Livestock and Land Program
!| Santa Cruz County
+
!| [[Santa Cruz County]]
 
|-  
 
|-  
 
!| 2017 - 2020
 
!| 2017 - 2020
 
!| Strawberry Certification Program
 
!| Strawberry Certification Program
!|  Pajaro, Lower Salinas and Santa Maria/Oso Flaco watersheds
+
!|  [[Pajaro Watershed|Pajaro]], [[Lower Salinas Watershed|Lower Salinas]] and Santa Maria/Oso Flaco watersheds
 
|}
 
|}
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 109: Line 104:
  
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
 
**[[Central Coast Region Agricultural Waiver]]
 
  
 
*[[Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act]]
 
*[[Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act]]
 +
 +
*[[State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)]]
 +
 +
*[[Regional Water Quality Control Boards]]
 +
 +
*[[California Coastal Commission]]
  
 
*[[Water Quality Act]]
 
*[[Water Quality Act]]
Line 118: Line 117:
 
*[[TMDL]]
 
*[[TMDL]]
  
*[[The 303d list of Impaired Waterbodies in the Monterey Bay Region]]
+
*[[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)|U.S. EPA]]
  
**[[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]
+
*[[California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)|CalEPA]]
** [[Approaches to TMDL Development and Implementation in the Monterey Bay Area]]
+
  
**[[Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]
+
*[[The 303d list of Impaired Waterbodies in the Monterey Bay Region]]
**[[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]
+
  
 
*[[Carr Lake]]
 
*[[Carr Lake]]
Line 132: Line 129:
 
*[[Pajaro Watershed]]
 
*[[Pajaro Watershed]]
  
 +
*[[Central Coast Region Agricultural Waiver]]
 +
 +
*[[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]
 +
 +
* [[Approaches to TMDL Development and Implementation in the Monterey Bay Area]]
 +
 +
*[[Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]
 +
 +
*[[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]
 +
 +
*[[Legislation related to environmental management in California's Central Coast Region]]
  
 
== Disclaimer ==
 
== Disclaimer ==
  
 
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.
 
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.

Latest revision as of 14:40, 26 February 2021

An environmental summary created by the ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems class at CSUMB.

Summary

Passed into law in 1972, the Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal federal law concerning the health of navigable waters in the United States. This command-and-control style bill focuses on restoring and preserving the “chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” using technology-based requirements[1]. It is a culmination of preceding water quality acts, combined with the addition of new requirements and means of enforcement. One major addition to previous requirements is the institution of stricter limitations on effluent discharges from industrial sources[2]. Similar guidelines were set for sewage treatment plants and newly-constructed factories[3]. Those who produce industrial discharge in the form of point source pollution, which includes any effluent from a traceable source such as a pipe or ditch, were required to obtain permits before discharging into waterways[1]. Permits are only issued if the industrial applicant complies with CWA requirements[4].


Origins of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, like stormwater and agricultural runoff, are harder to define and thus more difficult to regulate. Section 208 of the CWA requires the identification of NPS pollution and possible solutions for controlling it, but the ability to manage these pollutants is still difficult for California [5] and other state legislatures.

History

Historic photo from 1969 Cuyahoga fire actually from the 1952 fire. Author: Unknown

In 1969, the surface of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio - which, in parts, contained a thin layer of oil from cargo ship leaks - caught on fire. Though this was not the river’s first fire, it was the first to occur after the birth of the environmentalism movement. The combination of media coverage and a $100 million initiative to decontaminate the Cuyahoga in 1968[6] created a moment of punctuated equilibrium, which pushed policymakers to take action. The momentum sparked over this example of environmental degradation led to the re-visioning of both the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Water Quality Act of 1965 into the still active CWA. Interestingly, the media-circulated photos that generated the public outcry over Cuyahoga were not of the 1969 fire, but from a fire on the same river in 1952[7].

Previous Federal Laws and Regulations

  • 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act
  • Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948
  • Water Quality Act of 1965

History in California

In 1967, the California State legislature launched the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to protect water quality and allocate water to farmers and municipalities in ways that continue to maximize the protection of California state waters[8]. On a local level, nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards) were created to implement the state's water quality goals and plans based on each region's geology, hydrology, climate and topography[8].

Previous State Laws and Regulations

Recent Court Cases

Rapanos v. United States[9]

This 2006 ruling is considered by environmentalists to have weakened the Clean Water Act by cutting the country's water protection in half. John Rapanos was convicted of two felonies in the 1980s for converting 54 acres of wetland to a sand-filled foundation for a shopping mall. He sued the government in 2006 stating that the Clean Water Act's definition of navigable waters was too vague. While Rapanos' charges were dropped, the Supreme Court was unable to come up with a clearer legal definition for "navigable waters."

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE)[10]

The Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County, Illinois applied for permits to turn an old sand mining location into a landfill. Their application was denied by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) on the basis that excavated trenches on site had been transformed into ponds over time and now served as become migratory bird habitat. In 2001, the Supreme Court decided that ACE had overstepped its legislative reach in denying the permit because the ponds were not connected to navigable waters, and therefore ACE did not have jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA.

Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution

Historically, nonpoint source (NPS) pollution has been more difficult to manage than point source pollution because it is an accumulation of pollutants from multiple sources and is often dispersed over vast areas of land[11]. As NPS runoff from stormwater, agriculture and industry traverses impervious street surfaces and compacted farm lands, it absorbs salts, oils, fertilizers, insecticides and heavy metals that are ultimately carried diffusely into bodies of surface water[12]. This diffuseness continues to present the challenge of determining which group(s) should bear the financial burden of remediation.

Federal NPS Management Agencies

Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution in California

The two main agencies in charge of creating California’s NPS management plan are the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Coastal Commission. After the introduction of Section 319 of the CWA in 1987, these agencies developed the NPS plan using a watershed-based approach[13]. A watershed-based approach takes into consideration the entire journey that water travels within a defined area - from where the rain first falls to its runoff into rivers or streams which flow into larger water bodies - when making policy and management decisions[14].

State NPS Management Agencies

Section 303(d)

Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to list their impaired waterways. An impaired waterway is one in which the pollution control methods set in place are insufficient to maintain or achieve appropriate water quality standards. The state uses water quality data to determine if waterways meet the state's standards. For each waterway listed as impaired, the state is required to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for certain pollutants. TDMLs determine the daily loading capacity for each individual pollutant for a water body or waterway.[15]. The 303d list of Impaired Waterbodies in the Monterey Bay Region is a resource for more information on the status of local waterways.

Section 319

The mission of the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program, established by the 1987 amendments, is to assist the development and management of NPS projects at a local level. Grant money is made available to tribes, territories and states conducting a variety of projects, such as those involving demonstration projects, education, technical assistance, transfer of technology, etc.[16]

Central Coast 319 Projects

Section 319 Projects in the Central Coast Region[17], [18], [19].
Year Title Location
1998 - 1999 Carr Lake Salinas Valley - Carr Lake
2000 - 2001 Monterey Bay Regional Marketing Initiative Monterey County
2001 - 2004 Demonstration Farm & Outreach Program Central Monterey Bay
2010 Riparian Fencing Reduces Bacterial Levels and Improves Habitat in Tributary to National Estuary San Luisito Creek
2011 - 2016 Morro Bay Agricultural Water Quality Enhancement Program Morro Bay
2013 - 2016 Rural Roads Erosion Control Assistance Project Santa Cruz County
2016 - 2019 Pajaro Watershed Livestock and Land Program Santa Cruz County
2017 - 2020 Strawberry Certification Program Pajaro, Lower Salinas and Santa Maria/Oso Flaco watersheds

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, § 101(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (a).
  2. Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, § 101(a)(l)-(2), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(l)-(2) (1982)
  3. Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, 301(b)(1)(B), (2)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(b)(1)(B), (2)(B), amended by Pub. L. No. 97-117, § 21(b), 95 Stat. 1623, 1632 (1981)
  4. Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, § 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)
  5. [1978 GAO] Staats EB, Comptroller General. 1978. Water quality management planning is not comprehensive and may not be effective for many years. Government Accountability Office. #CED-78-167.
  6. Rotman M. 2016. Cuyahoga river fire. Cleveland Historical
  7. Latson J. 2015. The Burning River That Sparked a Revolution. Time History Magazine. [Cited on 05 April 2017
  8. 8.0 8.1 Environmental Protection Agency. [Date unknown. Water Quality Standards Regulations: California. [Cited on 03 April 2017]]
  9. Rural Community Assistance Partnership. [Date unknown. About the Clean Water Act. [Cited on 04 April 2017]]]
  10. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers. 531 U.S. 159. (2001).
  11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted runoff: nonpoint source pollution
  12. Withgott J. 2010. Environmental science: your world, your turn. Student edition. Pearson.
  13. State Water Resources Control Board. 2015. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Plan: policies and plans. [Cited on 02 April 2017]
  14. Texas A&M University. [Date unknown. Watershed approach to water quality management [Cited on 02 April 2017]]
  15. EPA Section 303
  16. 319 Grant Program for States and Territories
  17. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011. Completed Grants/Programs. [Cited on 04April 2017]
  18. Jones A., Kitajima A. 2010. Riparian Fencing Reduces Bacterial Levels and Improves Habitat in Tributary to National Estuary. Central Coast Water Board and Morro Bay National Estuary Program
  19. Central Coast Water Board. FY 15-16. Grant Projects Managed by Region 3. [Cited on 04 April 2017


Links

Disclaimer

This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of CSUMB, its staff, or students.