Talk:Nonpoint source water pollution regulations in the United States

Comment
Hey guys, I'm really impressed with your article! I think you've done a great job so far! You've created an article that is thorough and comprehensive. Here are a few things that I noticed that you may choose to address or ignore: The introductory sentence is a bit lengthy and kind of circular. And I think the phrase should be "polluted runoff from agricultural areas in a river catchment" (not "catchments"), but I think for clarity I would just leave it as "polluted runoff from agricultural areas." Also, there is a small typo in the second to last sentence. It should read "nonpoint source pollution ariseS from."

I think the history section is particularly well done. It's often tough to keep history concise, but you guys did a good job without leaving anything out.

I was a bit confused by Section 319. A state is required to "identify water bodies that cannot meet water-quality standards without control of nonpoint sources." And then are they also forced to come up with a management plan as well? The plan has to be approved by the EPA but it's unclear whether making a plan is required. Also, you indicated that Coastal Zone Management Plans fall under an amendment but do not specify which one. This would be helpful and provide clarity.

Finally, the list of policy instruments at the end of your article is quite comprehensive and would be great for a research paper, but does it fall outside the scope of a Wikipedia article? I don't know. It feels too list-like to me and not all of them directly relate to NPS pollution. I'm this would change later as your article progresses, but I just wanted to give you something to think about.

Great job guys! You've produced some high quality stuff here.

KJD2011 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You've got the start of a great article here! A few things jumped out at me though which might help you in making this page the best it can be.

First, I would try and start including as many links to other wikipedia pages as possible. For example, the clean water act already has its own page. You've done it in your introduction, but you need to keep doing it throughout the page.

Second, when you discuss policy instruments you might want to consider not starting each paragraph with "these types...". Instead, provide specific examples of how the tools can be used (different technology standards in use for example). If you don't have much to write about each type, consider making a table that lists them and link the ones that have existing pages.

Third, the "best management practices" section felt a little out of place. Consider incorporating it better with the other regulatory tools.

Finally, the last section does not flow like the other sections. Try to work together to make sure that it follows the same style as the other sections.Enveconmatt (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Classmate's comments
The article is coming together nicely. You all have done a great job. I would take the liberty to provide some suggestions/comments which can help in improving the article: 1) The discussion on the difficulties in dealing with non-point sources can be put just after introduction, so that the reader gets an idea about the gravity of the issue. 2) The section on laws should be less elaborate than policy section 3) I agree with other classmates that the policies which are actually being implemented in NPS water pollution control should be included in the article. 4) All possible phrases or words should be linked to other existing wikipages, for example, Clean Water Act.

Overall the article looks in good shape. Have good luck with everything!! --Swgarg (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Structure
I've started making a few changes to the article structure, and I'd be interested in hearing what you think. Yao, I took out a few sections at the end that had no content (mentioned this to you before in an email), and I have added some others. I will likely want to make many more changes as we continue working on this, but here is what I am thinking right now.


 * Intro
 * Scientific Basis (Even though this will probably be a short section and most of the scientific information will be in our changes to the NPSWP piece Amanda is going to work on, I think it is very important for it to be the first section. Richards often notes that the first step for crafting policy and legal solutions is identifying the environmental/scientific problem.
 * Legal Approaches
 * CWA- (We will need to include case law interpreting these sections of the CWA as they relate to NPSWPR. That is obviously my comparative advantage, so I will work on that.)
 * 319
 * 404
 * State NPSWPRegs
 * Other Policy Approaches (the stuff that is not just strictly legal)
 * References
 * Resources

Please add to the structure and give me your comments.Gardner.rw1 (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Will, I agree, we should remove those sections from the article, at least for right now. If we find that there is a place to put them once the article is more developed then we can put them back in or incorporate them under another section. I like the division of the different law sections of the CWA. I find that it adds a good framework for which the policy tools and possible case studies can be addressed. Perhaps we should add a case studies section that will, at least, address some of the practical uses that deal with legal nonpoint source pollution issues. For now, we should leave the article structured as it is, but let's keep in mind a possible restructuring of the article at a later date to provide better clarity to the reader. I think that's all for now.  I'll work on the article more tonight to try and flesh out possible case studies as well as possibly add to the science section. TrueBlueWolverine (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

CWA Section 405
Section 405 does not require storm water discharge permits. It established a permit system for disposal of sewage sludge (also called "biosolids") that is generated by POTWs. Sewage sludge is often disposed on land or incinerated; in those cases the sludge is not discharged to surface waters, so it is neither a point source nor a nonpoint source.

Section 402(p) requires EPA and states to issue NPDES permits to municipal separate storm sewer systems ("MS4s") and industrial stormwater dischargers. Congress added this provision in the Water Quality Act of 1987. By adding these categories to coverage under section 402 and the NPDES program, they are, by definition, point sources. Therefore the second paragraph in this section of the article needs rewriting.

All of the above is documented on EPA's website. See "Stormwater Program" and "Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)".

Since this article is titled, "Nonpoint source water pollution regulations in the United States," you probably don't need to discuss the section 405 sludge program at all. Please make the necessary corrections to the article, so as not to mislead the public. Thanks. Moreau1 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It will be updated soon to reflect this. Gardner.rw1 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Classmate's comments
Hi guys. Here are a couple of comments I have after reading through your article.
 * I agree that you should include more links in your article to other Wikipedia pages and external sources e.g. when you mention the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit program.
 * Your “Section 405” is not clear. I have a difficult time getting the gist of what it’s talking about. Perhaps you could frame it differently so that it would be easier to understand.
 * I feel that some of your sentences can be more succinct. For example, “The first possible instrument is command and control. Command and control is regulation through a direct order or requirement” could be “Command and control instruments, i.e. regulations through a direct order or requirement, can be used to limit NPS water pollution.”
 * I wonder whether it is enough to simply list environmental policy instruments. How are they being used/can they be used to regulate NPS water pollution? I feel that you can say a little more here to help the reader relate them better with your subject.

I look forward to reading the fully developed article. All the best!! Matumeru (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Classmate's Comments
Nice work. This is really comprehensive and provides a really good glimpse of what is an insanely complicated issue... One comment I had deals with Non-Point "interactions" with point sources. This is kindof an interesting angle that you may want to elaborate on (atleast being in the point source water pollution group i think its interesting). I'm not too sure on all the details, but I think there are states where the EPA has threatened to step in and ratchet down effluent limits for point sources for sources that are unable to meet non-point source limits. In other words, taking a more comprehensive approach to water pollution control. Im not sure if this is completely relevant, but it may be an interesting thing to address in the article.

Also, I think the subsection "Design standards and technical specifications" may not belong in the point source group since they pertain to point source dischargers. This may also be the case for "Performance standards and emissions limits". I think you may be able to refine this section a bit to eliminate some of the regulatory tools that dont really pertain to non-point source WP.

Its a really good article. Can't wait to see the final product!

Christdk (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Classmate's Comments
This is a really well organized article and you guys have done a nice job of breaking it down in a logical manner. It's coming together well! A few comments:
 * Throughout the article, you've used NPS, CWA, or other acronyms. I think in an academic research paper this is fine but with a Wikipedia article, the phrase should probably be spelled out. I think if someone comes to this article looking for one section, it might be confusing to see the acronym if they aren't totally familiar with the subject. Relatedly, in the Command and Control section, I'm not sure what CZMA is?
 * I'm really confused with "Section 404" - I think it could be rewritten for clarity.
 * I like the section you have on CAFOs and I would be interested to see that section expanded since agricultural runoff is such a big part of nonpoint source water pollution.
 * I would agree with a comment above about the policy. It reads more like a summary of options for any environmental problem - not for just nonpoint source water pollution. I would consider either adding in how these could or do apply to the subject or only including the ones that are used.

Jes029 (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple citations
Would anyone like a primer on how to do multiple citations?  Serendi pod ous  16:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be great! I thought I figured it out yesterday, but perhaps I made a mistake? Is there a help page somewhere on the subject?Gardner.rw1 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Serendipodous, now that I look at it, I believe you incorrectly changed my citations. The way they have been changed shows them all pointing to the same subsection of section 33 and 16 of the code. Was there a reason you changed them this way?Gardner.rw1 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, were they not all pointing to the same section?  Serendi pod ous  14:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ok. No, they were pointing to different subsections. Is there a way to change it back without losing the other changes I made yesterday?Gardner.rw1 (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorted.  Serendi pod ous  15:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Linking

 * The Guide to writing better articles says: "When you do create links, link only one or a few instances of the same term; don't link all instances of it."
 * Avoiding common mistakes warns against "Over-Wikifying": "Wikipedia thrives on internal links, but keep it within reason."
 * Also, links should be made only where they are relevant to the article, and not to every word. See Make only links relevant to the context.

WP:OVERLINK specifically says:
 * "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link:
 * plain English words;
 * terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
 * items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided);
 * dates." Ground Zero | t 10:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of headings
The Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,


 * Important things to know about this subject

not:
 * Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:
 * capitalize the first word,
 * capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
 * begin all other words with lower case letters.

See WP:MSH for more information. Ground Zero | t 10:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Indiana University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)