From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (October 2007)

It has been suggested that Water Pollution Control Act be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq., is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Commonly abbreviated as the CWA, the act established the symbolic goals of eliminating releases to water of high amounts of toxic substances, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and ensuring that surface waters would meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation by 1983.

The principal body of law currently in effect is based on the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), which significantly expanded and strengthened earlier legislation. Major amendments were enacted in the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4). ^[1]

The Act is comprised of six titles.

Contents 1 Title I - Research and Related Programs 2 Title II - Grants for Construction of Treatment Works 3 Title III - Standards and Enforcement 3.1 Technology-Based Industrial Pollution Standards: Effluent Guidelines 3.2 Industrial Pretreatment Program 3.3 National Water Quality Inventory 3.4 Nonpoint Source Management Program 3.5 Municipal Sewage Treatment: Technology-Based Standards 3.6 Water Quality Standards Program 4 Title IV - Permits and Licenses 4.1 Point source permits - NPDES 4.2 Dredge and Fill Permits (Wetlands) 5 Title V - General Provisions 5.1 Enforcement 5.2 Whistleblower protection 6 Title VI - State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds 7 Recent developments 8 Case law 9 References 10 See also 11 External links

Title I includes a Declaration of Goals and Policy (section 101) and various grant authorizations for research programs and pollution control programs. Some of the programs authorized by the 1972 law are ongoing (e.g. section 104 research programs and section 106 pollution control programs) while other programs are no longer operational.

To assist municipalities in creating or expanding wastewater treatment plants that were capable of meeting these standards, the CWA established a system to provide federal financial assistance, first in the form of construction grants, which were modified several times and later replaced by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund in 1987. See Title VI.

The 1972 Act continued the risk-based water quality standards development program from earlier legislation, and introduced the technology-based standards program.

Pursuant to the 1972 act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to promulgate effluent guidelines that regulate water pollution from industry categories. Effluent guidelines are technology-based standards: they are based on the performance of wastewater control and treatment technologies, without regard to the condition of particular water bodies. To date, these regulations have been published for 56 categories and apply to between 35,000 and 45,000 facilities that discharge directly to the nation's waters. These regulations are authorized by CWA sections 301, 304, 306 and 307 and are responsible for preventing the discharge of almost 700 billion pounds of pollutants each year. ^[2] [1] EPA has updated some categories since their initial promulgation and has added new categories. Effluent guidelines are implemented through NPDES permits (see Title IV).

While the effluent guidelines have been largely successful, because they apply to specific sources and are enforceable, the health- and water-quality-based standards have been much less so. As of 2007, approximately half of the rivers, lakes, and bays under EPA oversight were not safe enough for fishing and swimming. ^[3] The most important remaining cause of these problems (typically, diffuse runoff from farms, streets, and yards) is known as nonpoint source pollution, which was not addressed in the 1972 Act.

The Act established pretreatment requirements for industrial users (also called indirect dischargers) contributing wastes to publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), pursuant to Section 307. EPA has promulgated Categorical Standards, which are technology-based requirements for indirect dischargers, in conjunction with the effluent guidelines program.

Section 305(b) requires EPA and the states to compile a biennial Report to Congress on the nation's water quality.

The 1987 amendments created the Nonpoint Source Management Program under CWA section 319.

Section 304(d)(1) requires EPA to set standards for secondary treatment applicable to POTW. Most POTW in the United States are required to meet these technology-based standards. ^[4]

Section 303 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the water quality standards and TMDL programs. These are risk-based (also called hazard-based) programs which set site-specific pollutant standards for individual water bodies, such as rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands.

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. Over 60,000 TMDLs are proposed or in development for US waters in the next decade and a half.

Following the issuance of a water quality standard or TMDL for a water body, implementation of the requirements involves modification to NPDES permits for facilities discharging to the water body (see Title IV).

The system for granting and regulating discharge permits is called the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which regulates point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The NPDES program is authorized by CWA section 402. The permits are issued by state environmental agencies and EPA regional offices. The 1987 amendments to the Act expanded the program to cover stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) and industrial sources.

The Act requires that NPDES permits be reissued every five years. Permit agencies (EPA and states) must provide notice to the public of pending permits and provide an opportunity for public comment.

There is also a system of regulating the discharge of dredged and fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States, administered by the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404. This program regulates the discharge of fill and dredged material into jurisdictional waters of the United States. Essentially, all discharges of fill or dredged material affecting the bottom elevation of a jurisdictional water of the U.S. require a permit from the Army Corps. These permits are an essential part of protecting wetlands, which are often filled by land developers. Wetlands are vital to the ecosystem in filtering streams and rivers and providing habitat for wildlife.

There are two main types of permits--general permits, and individual permits. General permits change periodically and cover broad categories of activities, and require the user to comply with all stated conditions. Individual permits are more activity-specific and must be applied for, generally require more time and money to apply for them, and also contain mandatory conditions.

The Corps will give a notice about the request for permit no later than fifteen days after requested. Although the Secretary makes the decision if the permit is granted or not the Administrator is able to take-away permits if they feel that the permit is no reasonable; before making this decision though the Administrator must consult with the secretary. A permit expires after five years of being granted.

When a State wants a permit, they make sure that all other states being affected are aware they will be sent a copy of the request and the State is able to write a recommendation. A State permit also expires after five years of being granted.

Civil action will be given to any persons who violate any part of their permit. For a first offense, you get at least a $2,500 fine and a max of a $25,000 fine per day that the permit is violated. You may also receive up to a year in jail. On your second offense, you receive a maximum of a $50,000 fine per day of violation.

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can (October 2007).

Each state Administrator for the Clean Water Act will give facilities in that state their enforcements and their limitation for the Clean Water Act. If anybody breaks the enforcements or limitation the Administrator of any of these sections which include: 1311,1312,1316,1317,1318,1328 or 1345 to read about their violations that they have broken of the permits that is under section 1342 about the clean water act.

The 1972 amendment added a whistleblower protection. Employees in the US who believe they were fired or suffered another adverse action related to enforcement of this law have 30 days to file a written complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program was authorized by the 1987 amendments. This replaced the municipal construction grants program, which was authorized in the 1972 law under Title II. In the CWSRF, federal funds are provided to the states and Puerto Rico to capitalize their respective revolving funds, which are used to provide financial assistance (loans or grants) to local governments for wastewater treatment and related activities.

On July 25, 2007, Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin, introduced legislation to reiterate the Congress' objective in passing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972. The bill states that it was Congress' intention to protect all waters of the United States. Known as the Clean Water Restoration Act and co-sponsored by 19 Senators, the bill being reviewed by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This is considered by many environmental groups to be a necessary step towards reversing recent Supreme Court of the United States rulings that have repealed protection for as much as 60 percent of the nation's waters.

• United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985), upholding the Act's hold in regulating wetlands that intermingle with navigable waters.

• Solid Waste Agency of North Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), possibly denying the CWA's hold in isolated intra-state waters and certainly denying the validity of the 1986 "Migratory Bird Rule."

• S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Env. Protection, 547 U.S. ___ (2006), involving section 401 state certification requirements for federally licensed activities that cause a discharge into navigable waters.

• Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. ___ (2006), in separate controlling opinions questioned the Act's use of the terms "navigable waters" and "waters of the United States" and questioned the reach of the Act to regulate wetlands that possess a "significant nexus" with such waters.

• National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, No. 06-340 (June 25, 2007)[2].

• Aquatic toxicology
• Great Lakes Areas of Concern
• Stormwater
• Water management
• Water Pollution Control Act
• Water quality
• Water supply and sanitation in the United States

• Clean Water Act - Full text
• Clean Water Act - Full text with amendments through 2005 Maintained by California Water Resources Control Board
• Clean Water Act - Digest US Fish and Wildlife Service
• EPA - Clean Water State Revolving Fund
• EPA - NPDES Permit Program
• EPA - National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress
• EPA - Nonpoint Source Management Program
• EPA - Total Maximum Daily Loads
• Center for TMDL and Watershed Studies Virginia Tech