scholarly journals Comparing Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Policy Options

2002 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 106-138
Author(s):  
John Kadvany
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clean Water Act ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Clean Water ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
The U.S ◽  
New Facilities ◽  
Comparative Policy

This paper develops a comparative framework for policy proposals involving fish protection and Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 316(b) addresses the impingement and entrainment of fish by cooling-water intake structures used principally by steam electric power plants. The framework is motivated by examining the role of adverse environmental impacts (AEIs) in the context of Section 316(b) decision making. AEI is mentioned in Section 316(b), but not defined. While various AEI options have been proposed over the years, none has been formalized through environmental regulations nor universally accepted. Using a multiple values approach from decision analysis, AEIs are characterized as measurement criteria for ecological impacts. Criteria for evaluating AEI options are identified, including modeling and assessment issues, the characterization of ecological value, regulatory implementation, and the treatment of uncertainty. Motivated by the difficulties in defining AEI once and for all, a framework is introduced to compare options for 316(b) decision making. Three simplified policy options are considered, each with a different implicit or explicit AEI approach: (1) a technology-driven rule based on a strict reading of the 316(b) regulatory text, and for which any impingement and entrainment count as AEI, (2) a complementary, open-ended risk-assessment process for estimating population effects with AEI characterized on a site-specific basis, and (3) an intermediate position based on proxy measures such as specially constructed definitions of littoral zone, sensitive habitat, or water body type. The first two proposals correspond roughly to responses provided, respectively, by the Riverkeeper environmental organization and the Utility Water Act Group to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s proposed 316(b) new facilities rule of August 2000; the third example is a simplified form of the EPA’s proposed August 2000 new facilities rule itself. The simplified policy positions are compared using the three dimensions of the comparative policy framework: (1) the role of CWA philosophy or vision, such as the use of technology-forcing rules, (2) regulatory policy implementation, and (3) the role for scientific information and the knowledge base. Strengths and weaknesses of all three 316(b) policy approaches are identified. The U.S. EPA’s final new facilities rule of November 2001 is briefly characterized using the comparative policy framework and used to further illustrate the approach.

Revision of Industrial Effluent Regulations in Israel

1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 71-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Weber ◽  
G. Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Central Government ◽  
Clean Water Act ◽  
Industrial Effluent ◽  
Hazardous Materials ◽  
Clean Water ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The U.S

Industrial effluent regulations in Israel can be promulgated pursuant to four statutory sources. No clear boundaries delineating the scope of these laws exist, and some of them are neither environmental nor water laws per se. The resulting legal situation is one of confusion, duality and even contradiction both institutionally and substantively. A revision in the Israeli approach towards the regulation of industrial effluent is proposed, taking into consideration some elements of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Ideas are presented for setting up jurisdictional boundaries between the local and central government authorities to differentiate between organic loads and hazardous materials. In addition, the paper calls for criteria and discretionary limits on the setting up of permit conditions and enactment of regulations as well as the need for improvement of existing effluent criteria.

ASSESSING THE FRAMEWORK OF POLICY OUTCOMES: THE CASE OF THE U.S. CLEAN AIR ACT AND CLEAN WATER ACT

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (04) ◽  
pp. 1450034 ◽  
Author(s):  
LUKE FOWLER
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Air Pollutants ◽  
Clean Water Act ◽  
Clean Air Act ◽  
Management Control ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Clean Water ◽  
Clean Air ◽  
The U.S

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) have been the lynchpins of the U.S. environmental policy for the last half century. Under both acts the federal government sets standards and the states implement, the outcomes of the CAA and CWA have not been the same however. While criteria air pollutants across the nation have been reduced or maintained under the management control strategies of the CAA, far less is known about the effects the CWA has had on water quality, even though, most agree water quality has improved since its implementation. These acts are built on similar frameworks, but the real difference lies on the embedded identification of assessment criteria. The CAA creates a rigid framework for the consistent identification and monitoring of air pollutants, while the CWA relies on a much more flexible system that varies over space and time. Thus, it is the embedded environmental assessment criteria within these acts that have led to different outcomes for similar policies.

Defense Attorneys and Plea Bargains

2019 ◽  
pp. 37-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelsey S. Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Psychological Processes ◽  
Defense Attorneys ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
Federal Standard ◽  
Extralegal Factors ◽  
The U.S

In the landmark Gideon v. Wainwright decision (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court established the federal standard of appointed counsel for indigent defendants as fundamental to fairness. This right has been upheld throughout the years and is central to our adversarial system. The attorney’s responsibility is to zealously serve as the accused’s strongest counselor and advocate. In the context of plea bargaining, the attorney can assist the defendant in making a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent plea decision. The attorney may act as a “debiaser,” counteracting irrationality on the defendant’s part. However, research suggests structural influences and psychological processes may impede the role of the attorney. This chapter explores how legal and extralegal factors affect attorneys’ plea decision-making, which ultimately influence defendants’ decisions to waive or invoke their right to trial.

scholarly journals System Re-engineering: A New Policy Framework for the American R&D System in a Changed World

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Flagg ◽  
Paul Harris
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Current System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The U.S ◽  
New Framework

The United States must adopt a new approach to R&D policy to optimize the diversity of the current system, manage the risks of system dispersion and deliver the benefits of R&D to society. This policy brief provides a new framework for understanding the U.S. R&D ecosystem and recommendations for repositioning the role of the federal government in R&D.

scholarly journals Workshop: Bringing economics, health and migration together: a mutual learning experiment

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Migrant Health ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Translation Strategies ◽  
Mutual Learning ◽  
Knowledge Translation Strategies

Abstract Acknowledging the role of economic arguments in political discourses and decision-making, researchers have begun to pay more attention to the fiscal implications of different health policy options for migrants. As yet, empirical evidence on economic effects of policy responses to migration and the societal costs or cost-effectiveness of competing strategies to address migrants’ health needs is scarce. Methodological challenges such as limited availability and accessibility of decent data often impede the generation of robust evidence. Further, little is known as to how evidence can effectively be moved into policy; e.g., the actual clout of economic arguments in migration policies debates, as opposed to other evidence- or value-based arguments, hitherto remains unclear. In other social policy domains such as educational and labour market integration, economic evaluations have become routine components of policy assessments. And under the title of, e.g., knowledge translation, strategies for the introduction of research evidence into political decision-making processes have been developed. The combination of similar goals and challenges suggests that there are opportunities to build bridges across sectors and disciplines - e.g., public health, social epidemiology, economics, social policy, data science - as well as across research-practice-divides, for the purposes of mutual learning and the joint improvement of research outcomes. The goal of this workshop is to start such learning processes by bringing together researchers and professionals from different fields, by sharing existing knowledge, and by jointly exploring the following questions: What are the thematic intersections, tensions and synergies between the different disciplines? What are common goals and questions? Which kinds of different knowledge complement each other towards those goals?Where are options for mutual learning, methodological transfer and/or synthesis? How can they help to overcome current challenges in estimating the costs of divergent migrant health policies?What can be learnt from existing knowledge translation strategies as regards the role of research for migrant health policy making?What challenges and open questions remain? The workshop will start with a brief introduction of key concepts and objectives. The first presentation will use three case studies to reflect on the potential of economic evaluation for improving health screening and assessment policies for asylum seekers in Germany. The second presentation will provide input from seminal research on public policy in migration contexts. A third presentation will summarize previous activities and insights of the work group “Economic arguments in migrant health policy making”. The following discussion will examine the above noted questions by tapping into the presenters’ expertise and the audience’s experience. The workshop will be closed with a summary of lessons learnt and directions for future research. Key messages Economic arguments play a central role in policy-making; but economic analyses of different migrant health policy options are hampered by various methodological challenges and tensions. Seminal research in other social policy domains offers potential for mutual learning, toward the end of generating valid economic evidence on the cost-benefits of migrants’ greater in-/exclusion.

scholarly journals Biological Status Assessment of Coral Reefs in Southern Puerto Rico: Supporting Coral Reef Protection Under the U.S. Clean Water Act

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 429-452
Author(s):  
William S. Fisher ◽  
Deborah N. Vivian ◽  
Jed Campbell ◽  
Charles Lobue ◽  
Rebecca L. Hemmer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Puerto Rico ◽  
Coral Reef ◽  
Coral Reefs ◽  
Clean Water Act ◽  
Clean Water ◽  
Status Assessment ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Coral Reef Protection
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document