Clean Water Act turns 40

  • There is discord concerning the need for updates and revisions to the Clean Water Act. In part, the CWA is a victim of its own overarching ambitions. It set standards that turned out to be impossible for the country to meet.

On Oct. 18, 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments which became the cornerstone of what would become known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Industry and environmentalists alike agree that the CWA has been one of the country's most effective environmental laws. Citing the Cuyahoga River’s conflagration in 1969 and the Hudson River’s subjection to raw sewage and industrial discharge, there seems to be universal agreement that there has been great improvement to U.S. waters through the CWA.

Yet there is discord concerning the need for updates and revisions to the CWA. In part, the CWA is a victim of its own overarching ambitions. It set standards that turned out to be impossible for the country to meet. For instance, in 1972, it was written that the discharge of all pollution into navigable waters should be eliminated by 1985.

Environmentalists contend that the CWA needs to be updated and strengthened, with claims that many kinds of pollution stemming from agriculture, mining, septic systems, storm water runoff, and the timber industry are still largely unregulated and are causing problems such as dead zones, hypoxic waters, and harmful algal blooms in the nation's waters.

States and municipalities complain about unfunded mandates and are urging the federal government to invest more heavily in infrastructure.

Agriculture and many other industries are claiming that the EPA is overstepping the bounds and undermining federal-state cooperation set out by the CWA. EPA is being charged with overriding states’ rights to establish their own water quality standards in Florida, the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River Basin. A guidance document developed by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers is viewed by many industries as a means to greatly expand the jurisdiction of the CWA beyond the “navigable waters” of the United States. In addition, the CWA permit issuance system for certain pesticide applications, mandated by a court ruling, is seen by agriculture and other industries as duplicative and unnecessary regulation.

Although the CWA’s achievements seem universally accepted, the limitations and the means of implementation of this law will be controversial for years to come.

Discuss this Article 1

Peter Maier (not verified)
on Oct 24, 2012

The Clean Water Act (CWA) from the start was a failure, because, when EPA implemented the Act in 1972, it used (as in many other countries) an essential water pollution test incorrect and ignored 60% of the pollution in sewage Congress clearly intended to treat. Among the waste ignored was and still is all the nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste, while this waste, besides exerting an oxygen demand (like fecal waste) also is a fertilizer for algae, thus contributes to dead zones, now mostly blamed on the runoffs from farms and cities.
Ever since the EPA acknowledged the problems with the test in 1984, it has refused to correct this test and we still do not even know how sewage is treated and what the effluent waste load is on receiving water bodies. In a recent article by Investigate West (www.invw.org) an EPA spokeswoman stated that urine in sewage does not need treatment and that only when receiving waters are sensitive for ammonia EPA will demand such treatment. She clearly does not know that the oxygen demand caused by nitrogenous waste directly represents 40% of total oxygen in raw sewage, but that one pound of nitrogen, even the nitrates as the result of ammonia treatment, will create 20 pounds of alga and that when these alga die, they will exert the same type, but much more oxygen demand, than was created by the fecal waste in raw sewage. It should be obvious that, without nitrogenous waste treatment, one might as well dump the raw sewage directly into our open waters and save a lot of money.
If we really are serious about water pollution we first should demand that EPA correct this essential test in its regulations and implement the CWA as was intended. The sad part is that EPA already in1978 in one of their reports acknowledged that much better sewage treatment( including nitrogenous waste) not only was available, but actually could be build and operated at lower cost, compared to conventional sewage treatment plants, that are based on a century old technology, developed solely to prevent odor problems.

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Western Farm Press ID
(optional)

Continuing Education Courses
This accredited CE course focuses on choosing the correct variety alfalfa based on a number of...
New Course
The 2,000-member Weed Science Society of America’s (WSSA) Herbicide Resistance Action...

The course details six of the primary diseases affecting citrus: Huanglongbing (Citrus...

Newsletter Signup