Talk:Clean Water Act/Archives/2011

Errors?
I believe that only "Best Achievable Technology" is required, which is a BIG difference from "Best Available Technology". "Achievable" takes into account cost-benefit, while "available" does not.

Also, I do not believe that NPDES permits regulate non-point sources. Non-point sources are things like run-off from agricultural fields and are hard to measure. Point sources are also known as "end-of-pipe" regulations and can be permitted because they are measureable.


 * You are correct that NPDES permits are only for point sources. 33 USC 1342(a) provides that permits are for the "discharge of any pollutant", and "discharge of a pollutant" is defined in 33 USC 1362(12) as "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source." You are also correct that agricultural stormwater discharges are not point sources.  See 33 USC 1362(14).  Just one correction: concentrated animal feeding operations are defined as point sources and require permits, even though they are not the typical "discernible, confined and discrete conveyance" and can create diffuse runoff.  (By the way, don't forget to sign your comments!)    Thunk

While I can't dispute the legal reasoning above, I know that NPDES permits are in fact issued by state environmental protection agencies for stormwater construction (i.e. stormwater management plans during construction of a subdivision) and for municipal separate storm sewers. James V. Kelsh, Esq.


 * It is correct that NPDES permits apply only to point sources. I have corrected the NPDES paragraph accordingly.  I have also added clarifications about NPDES permits issued by states and EPA regional offices, and the discussion on effluent guidelines. When I have the time I will add appropriate references (CWA sec. 402, etc.) Moreau1


 * This article has some useful info but is in serious need of expansion and editing. If sufficient material is added on each major section of the CWA, it may be appropriate to create separate articles  for each Title of the CWA, or perhaps each Section.  (Any volunteers?)  Moreau1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreau1 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected details of Rapanos, he is a developer not a farmer, his age is not relevant and even his own consultant determined the site was wetlands not cornfield. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) J.H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinjoe (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See comments below on Waters Protected and Case Law Sections. Moreau1 (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge Water Pollution Control Act page into the Clean Water Act page
The WPCA, enacted in 1948, has largely been superceded by amendments described on the CWA page. The name "Clean Water Act" is by far the most commonly-used term for the current law, and having a separate entry for an older version of the law is confusing. A section on the CWA page should be created to describe laws/amendments prior to the 1972 act, and this should incorporate the information from the WPCA page. Moreau1 05:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I created a redirect from the WPCA article, as per previous comments. Moreau1 (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Style, Organization and Links
In a continuing quest for clarity and accuracy, I've edited the page to provide consistent headings and descriptions, and to explain connections between various aspects of the law and its programs (e.g. water quality standards & NPDES permits). In keeping with Wikipedia style requirements, links that were off-topic or commercial have been deleted. (FYI: Whistleblower-related links can be found on the Whistleblower page.) Moreau1 (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite/Expansion
I've rewritten various sections for clarity and added an introductory section on Pollution Control Strategy. More work is needed to provide complete references. A rewrite/expansion of the Section 404 program would be welcome. Any takers? Moreau1 (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph on "In situ uranium mining"; proposed deletion
This paragraph (added February 17, 2008) inserts what appears to be a very specialized subject about one aspect of CWA implementation, namely discharges of groundwater from uranium mines to surface waters. This subject is off-topic relative to the overall theme of the article, i.e. an overview of the Clean Water Act. It also uses confusing and incorrect terminology about CWA implementation and the authority of state governments.

The paragraph was inserted in the “Nonpoint Sources” section, however, the discharge implied in the discussion is an industrial point source. The description of the discharge activity and its relation to CWA requirements and procedures is vague, and no references are provided by the author. Some aspects of the CWA requirements described appear to be factually incorrect. For example, mining companies that are discharging to waters of the U.S. cannot obtain an “exemption” from permitting. (If there is such a thing, it would have to be pursuant to an act of Congress or a court order. Please provide a reference.) Mining operators, like all other dischargers, must obtain NPDES permits.

The statement, “Corporations have convinced states such as Nebraska and Colorado to take over CWA responsibilities from the federal government…” is misleading, since these states were granted authority to issue NPDES permits by EPA back in the 1970’s. Most states have been granted NPDES authority by EPA (45 states at present). In the phrase, "take over CWA respnsibilities..." perhaps the writer meant something more specific related to the states' development of water quality standards (WQS) under CWA sec. 303? Some states have been more active in issuing WQS in the last 10 years or so, although they may have had legal authority for a much longer period.

Beyond the issue of states’ authority to issue permits & WQS is the question of whether specific permits—in this case, some permits for mining discharges--are subject to WQS, and whether those standards are sufficiently protective of the particular water bodies for their designated use(s). That is a topic that could be addressed in a separate article. E.g., “Regulation of Surface Water Discharges from Mining Activity.” There are some existing articles on related topics, such as Radioactive contamination and Uranium in the environment. (While I’m on the subject of needed articles, we could also use one on the overall CWA Water Quality Standards program—how it works, implementation by states, etc.) Regarding South Dakota, that state has been authorized by EPA to issue NPDES permits since 1993. The state has issued some WQS at least as far back as the 1970’s. See the state’s webpage at The state must certify under CWA sec. 401 that particular permitted discharges will not violate the WQS. If in fact South Dakota or other states have exempted mining discharges from particular WQS, that is not clear from the paragraph as currently written, and in any event this topic should be addressed in a separate article.

I recommend this paragraph be deleted from this article, unless the author can provide sufficient references and rewrites to better explain the relevance to this general article on the CWA. Moreau1 (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Paragraph deleted for reasons stated above. The text is saved below, in case someone would like to use it to create a new article.
 * In situ uranium mining requires that mining companies obtain an exemption from the application of the Clean Water Act -- for ever -- for the body of water/uranium bearing strata/aquifer within the mining area during the life of the mine, and where-ever the now dissolved uranium and other radioactive and heavy metals in the "restored" solution will travel. Travel includes intermixing of aquifers due to faults and fracturing.  Corporations have convinced states such as Nebraska and Colorado to take over CWA responsibilities from the federal government, authorizing under "Class III" water permits the degradation of the "restored" water below the original water quality levels.  This is because in situ or solution uranium mining cannot restore the water to its original quality after extracting the highly valuable uranium.  South Dakota is the next state which is set to discuss assuming CWA responsibility for water quality and authorizing licensing of an "exemption" from CWA standards to permit the uranium mining industry (mostly foreign based companies), to seek mining permits.
 * Moreau1 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Water Quality Standards Program
I removed this, "While the effluent guidelines have been largely successful, because they apply to specific sources and are enforceable, the WQS have been much less so." because it's a biased statement from what seems to be from a permit writer's POV. From a Water Quality Standards POV, implmentation of technology based standards have failed to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act and therefore a water quality based approach is needed to do what technology cannot. --205.225.207.97 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)