Does the Primacy System Work? State versus Federal Implementation of the Clean Water Act

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-160
Author(s):  
Luke Fowler ◽  
Chris Birdsall

Abstract In the United States, environmental federalism largely relies on a system for policy implementation that allows the federal government to delegate primary program authority (or primacy) to state agencies. Although it is an ingrained feature of several major federal environmental policies, such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), there is little evidence to indicate what impact delegating authorities has on programs. In order to examine this, the authors use a synthetic control technique to determine how actual CWA program outcomes in five states compare to expected outcomes if EPA retained primary authority. Findings indicate that while there were no significant differences in Texas and Oklahoma, state primacy led to improved program outcomes in Florida, but worse outcomes in Maine and South Dakota. Conclusions suggest that primacy has asymmetrical impacts that largely depend on state implementation systems, which carries important implications for environmental federalism.

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1878
Author(s):  
Alan R. Hunt ◽  
Meiyin Wu ◽  
Tsung-Ta David Hsu ◽  
Nancy Roberts-Lawler ◽  
Jessica Miller ◽  
...  

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects less than ¼ of a percent of the United States’ river miles, focusing on free-flowing rivers of good water quality with outstandingly remarkable values for recreation, scenery, and other unique river attributes. It predates the enactment of the Clean Water Act, yet includes a clear anti-degradation principle, that pollution should be reduced and eliminated on designated rivers, in cooperation with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and state pollution control agencies. However, the federal Clean Water Act lacks a clear management framework for implementing restoration activities to reduce non-point source pollution, of which bacterial contamination impacts nearly 40% of the Wild and Scenic Rivers. A case study of the Musconetcong River, in rural mountainous New Jersey, indicates that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act can be utilized to mobilize and align non-governmental, governmental, philanthropic, and private land-owner resources for restoring river water quality. For example, coordinated restoration efforts on one tributary reduced bacterial contamination by 95%, surpassing the TMDL goal of a 93% reduction. Stakeholder interviews and focus groups indicated widespread knowledge and motivation to improve water quality, but resource constraints limited the scale and scope of restoration efforts. The authors postulate that the Partnership framework, enabled in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, facilitated neo-endogenous rural development through improving water quality for recreational usage, whereby bottom-up restoration activities were catalyzed via federal designation and resource provision. However, further efforts to address water quality via voluntary participatory frameworks were ultimately limited by the public sector’s inadequate funding and inaction with regard to water and wildlife resources in the public trust.


1988 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca W. Hanmer

The pulp, paper, and paperboard industry in the United States is the larqest industrial user of water with half of the facilities discharging wastewater directly to our Nation's waters. The major pollutants of concern have historically been the conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH. Biological treatment systems are currently employed to reduce these pollutants. Sludges generated by these treatment systems have been categorized as nonhazardous and are generally landfilled. Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated all the reguired regulations for this industry. The national regulations are applied to individual pulp and paper mills through permits issued by EPA Regional or State staff. Permit limits can be written that are more restrictive than the national regulations to protect local water guality. In its current projects concerning the pulp and paper industry, EPA is focusing on the reduction of toxic pollutants. The Agency is conducting a joint EPA/industry program to study dioxin discharges at bleached kraft mills. The Agency will also undertake a comprehensive review of the pulp and paper regulations in 1988.


1994 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy R. Carriker

AbstractThe federal government program for wetlands regulation is administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Proposals for amending and/or reforming the Section 404 program are included in Congressional deliberations regarding Clean Water Act reauthorization. Specific issues of public policy include the definition of “waters of the United States”, criteria for delineation of jurisdictional wetlands, definition of activities exempt from regulation, mitigation and classification of wetlands, and issues of property rights.


2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 797-804

<div> <p>Non-point sources pollution from highway runoff is among the most important reasons for surface and ground waters degradation. Atmospheric deposition, exhaust emissions, pavement wear and tire wear all have been found to be crucial pollutants in highway runoff. The most critical pollutants included in the runoff of interurban roads such as total suspended solids, heavy metals, chlorides and nutrients, together with the factors affecting their concentration are been investigated. Existing legislation about drainage and highway stormwater management in United States and European Union as well as the federal agencies of the United States which have the responsibility to regulate drainage and stormwater management are also presented. Water pollution concerns in the Unites States are mainly addressed through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, known as the Clean Water Act. Provisions within the Clean Water Act require all states to implement regulations in order to reduce the pollutant mass loading prior to discharging into water recipients. In European Union the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC sets common goals for the water management and created an overall water policy for management at an international level.</p> </div> <p>&nbsp;</p>


1989 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genevieve Laffly

Abstract Regulatory requirements in the United States controlling wastewater pollutants and toxicity resulting from point sources, such as refineries, emanated from passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972 and its subsequent amendments, collectively referred to as the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act empowers in the federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and states to issue effluents limitation guidelines and water quality standards to point sources that discharge pollutants directly to surface waters. These guidelines and standards are contained in permits issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The current regulatory emphasis on toxics probably will lead to more stringent pretreatment standards and reduced refinery wastewater flow.


Author(s):  
Lina E. Polvi ◽  
Daniel W. Baker

Physical integrity for rivers refers to a set of active fluvial processes and landforms wherein the channel, floodplain, sediment, and overall spatial configuration maintain a dynamic equilibrium, according to Graf 2001 (cited under Components of Physical Integrity). Physical integrity is achieved when river processes and forms maintain active connections with each other in the present hydrologic regime. The term “physical integrity” was first used in an important piece of legislation in the United States of America, the Clean Water Act of 1977, in which it is stipulated that the nation must restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s water. Within the Environmental Protection Agency, the governmental agency charged with carrying out and enforcing the Clean Water Act, and the scientific literature, much of the focus has been on the chemical and biological integrity, with less direct focus on how to restore physical integrity. However, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there has been a greater scientific focus on restoration of physical forms and processes in rivers. Restoration of physical integrity encompasses several aspects: reducing fragmentation, ensuring functional physical processes and equilibrium, allowing dynamic processes, and matching restoration to geographic large-scale controls. In practice, restoration of physical integrity can be divided into two main categories—those focused on restoring form by increasing physical heterogeneity or creating a specific planform (e.g., meandering) or bedform (e.g., pool-riffles), and those focused on restoring processes, including sediment transport, flow retention, and flooding in order to maintain forms. Form-based restoration is usually rooted in the assumption that a reference condition can elucidate the forms that best match the processes under similar hydrologic and sediment regimes. Reference conditions can either be historical (i.e., where there is sufficient data on previous channel conditions before the degradation occurred) or geographical—where there is an undisturbed stream reach within the same region with similar climatic, hydrological, geological, and land-use conditions and the reference and degraded reaches have similar drainage areas and valley characteristics (in terms of valley slope and with and hillslope conditions). In addition, process-based restoration goals based on ecosystem functioning or channel classification schemes can be used in designing channel restoration. In areas where the flow regime is heavily altered, by for example dams, flow diversions or land-use conditions, environmental or functional flows have been used to determine which flows (e.g., five-year flood) are necessary to maintain certain physical processes or forms.


EDIS ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 2004 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Olexa ◽  
Aaron Leviten ◽  
Kelly Samek

The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to maintain and restore the quality of the waters of the United States. The definition of waters is broad, including all waters subject to tidal movements, reaching between states, or used in interstate or foreign commerce. This is EDIS document FE452, a publication of the Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, UF/IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Published December 2003. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe452


Author(s):  
Charles F. Bowman

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires plants with intake flows of over 2 million gallons of water per day taken from the waters of the United States to implement the “best available” technology to reduce injury and death of fish and other aquatic life that may be impinged on or entrained in the intake. The two options commonly identified to address 316(b) are closed cycle cooling and fish screens. A third option that is often overlooked and may be less expansive is to implement changes in the plant, allowing it to operate with less condenser circulating water (CCW) flow. Most CCW systems of power plants were originally designed to achieve an economic optimum balance between capital cost and the operating benefit of a lower main condenser (MC) pressure with the resulting increased electrical output. For those plants that are located on rivers, lakes, and oceans where CCW was abundant and free, economics often dictated high CCW flows impelled by low-head pumps and MC’s designed with minimal surface areas, as larger MC’s were not justified on the basis of economics. The passage of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act suggests a new look at the existing CCW system design for many plants with the goal of reducing the required CCW flow rate. In some instances simply reducing the CCW flow rate may be sufficient to meet 316(b) requirements. In other cases, the reduction of CCW flow may significantly reduce the capital and operating cost of adding cooling towers and/or fish screens. This paper investigates ways to reduce the required CCW flow to existing power plants by redesigning and modifying the existing CCW system based on current technology. The result could be a new, improved, MC and other turbine cycle equipment and perhaps new CCW pumps, resulting in the same or better plant performance. The paper presents case studies in which the CCW systems for two power plants are redesigned to reduce the CCW flow.


2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 657-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leigh DeHaven ◽  
Rebecca Tirrell

ABSTRACT In light of the recently updated U.S. Coast Guard Regulation for Vessel Response Plans, which include requirements for vessel dispersant response capabilities and with the recent expansion of many U.S. Coastal Dispersant ?reauthorization Zones, it is important that both alternative oil spill chemical countermeasure product manufacturers and oil spill responders have an understanding of the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution, Subpart J Product Schedule (NCP Product Schedule). The NCP Product Schedule lists alternative chemical countermeasures which may be used in oil spills in the United States if authorized by a Federal On-Scene Coordinator with consultation from the Regional Response Team including local Trustees. The product types currently listed on the NCP Product Schedule include dispersants, surface washing agents, bioremediation agents and miscellaneous oil spill control agents. Sorbents are also defined in the NCP Product Schedule, but they may or may not be required to be listed on the NCP Product Schedule depending upon their composition. The unauthorized use of oil spill chemical countermeasure products listed on the NCP Product Schedule on an on water oil spill is a violation of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the use of chemical products that are not listed on the NCP Product Schedule on oil spills on waters of the United States is also a violation of the Clean Water Act. Before a chemical countermeasure product is used during an oil spill in waters of the United States, new products must meet the data requirements stated in Subpart J of the NCP Product Schedule regulation (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300.900). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains and updates the NCP Product Schedule. The EPA reviews the required data packages for new products and regularly updates the NCP Product Schedule and Technical Notebook on the NCP Product Schedule website (www.epa.gov/emergencies). This paper and poster will outline the steps to list a new product and provide background information on the NCP Product Schedule.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document