DOCSLIB.ORG

Prohibit State Agencies from Regulating Waters More Stringently Than the Federal Clean Water Act, Or Limit Their Authority to Do So

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prohibit State Agencies from Regulating Waters More Stringently Than the Federal Clean Water Act, Or Limit Their Authority to Do So STATE CONSTRAINTS State-Imposed Limitations on the Authority of Agencies to Regulate Waters Beyond the Scope of the Federal Clean Water Act An ELI 50-State Study May 2013 A PUBLICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE WASHINGTON, DC ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under GSA contract No. GS-10F-0330P (P.O. # EP10H000246). The contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views of EPA, and no official endorsement of the report or its findings by EPA may be inferred. Principal ELI staff contributing to the project were Bruce Myers, Catherine McLinn, and James M. McElfish, Jr. Additional research and editing assistance was provided by Carolyn Clarkin, Michael Liu, Jocelyn Wiesner, Masumi Kikkawa, Katrina Cuskelly, Katelyn Tsukada, Jamie Friedland, Sean Moran, Brian Korpics, Meredith Wilensky, Chelsea Tu, and Kiera Zitelman. ELI extends its thanks to Donna Downing and Sonia Kassambara of EPA, as well as to Erin Flannery and Damaris Christensen. Any errors and omissions are solely the responsibility of ELI. The authors welcome additions, corrections, and clarifications for purposes of future updates to this report. About ELI Publications— ELI publishes Research Reports that present the analysis and conclusions of the policy studies ELI undertakes to improve environmental law and policy. In addition, ELI publishes several journals and reporters—including the Environmental Law Reporter, The Environmental Forum, and the National Wetlands Newsletter—and books, which contribute to education of the profession and disseminate diverse points of view and opinions to stimulate a robust and creative exchange of ideas. Those publications, which express opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Institute, its Board of Directors, or funding organizations, exemplify ELI’s commitment to dialogue with all sectors. ELI welcomes suggestions for article and book topics and encourages the submission of draft manuscripts and book proposals. State Constraints: State-Imposed Limitations on the Authority of Agencies to Regulate Waters Beyond the Scope of the Federal Clean Water Act Copyright © 2013 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. All rights reserved. ELI Project No. 0931-01 (Environmental Law Institute®, The Environmental Forum®, and ELR® – The Environmental Law Institute Law Reporter® are registered trademarks of the Environmental Law Institute.) CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .........................................................................3 NATIONAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN STATE LAWS...................7 PART I STATES WITH STRINGENCY LIMITATIONS............................................................ 11 A. STRINGENCY PROHIBITIONS ............................................................. 12 B. QUALIFIED STRINGENCY PROHIBITIONS ............................................. 13 C. THREE KEY ASPECTS OF A STATE STRINGENCY PROVISION .................. 15 D. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROTECTING ADDITIONAL STATE WATERS ............... 18 PART II STATES WITH PROPERTY-BASED LIMITATIONS .................................................... 20 A. COMPENSATION/PROHIBITION PROVISIONS ........................................ 21 B. ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS ............................................................... 24 C. OTHER PROVISIONS........................................................................ 27 D. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROTECTING ADDITIONAL STATE WATERS ............... 29 PART III SYNTHESIS: COMPARING STATES THAT REGULATE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT TO STATES THAT SELF-LIMIT ................................31 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................36 APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...............................................................38 APPENDIX 2: STATE PROFILES .............................................................................40 ALABAMA ...............................................................................................41 ALASKA..................................................................................................42 ARIZONA ................................................................................................43 ARKANSAS ..............................................................................................49 CALIFORNIA ............................................................................................52 COLORADO .............................................................................................54 CONNECTICUT.........................................................................................57 DELAWARE .............................................................................................59 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ............................................................................61 FLORIDA ................................................................................................62 GEORGIA ...............................................................................................78 HAWAII ..................................................................................................79 IDAHO ...................................................................................................80 ILLINOIS .................................................................................................86 INDIANA .................................................................................................87 IOWA .....................................................................................................93 KANSAS .................................................................................................97 KENTUCKY............................................................................................102 LOUISIANA............................................................................................106 MAINE .................................................................................................114 MARYLAND ...........................................................................................123 MASSACHUSETTS...................................................................................126 MICHIGAN ............................................................................................128 MINNESOTA ..........................................................................................132 MISSISSIPPI ..........................................................................................135 MISSOURI.............................................................................................141 MONTANA.............................................................................................143 NEBRASKA............................................................................................151 NEVADA ...............................................................................................154 NEW HAMPSHIRE...................................................................................157 NEW JERSEY ........................................................................................158 NEW MEXICO........................................................................................163 NEW YORK ...........................................................................................164 NORTH CAROLINA ..................................................................................166 NORTH DAKOTA.....................................................................................169 OHIO...................................................................................................173 OKLAHOMA...........................................................................................176 OREGON ..............................................................................................178 PENNSYLVANIA ......................................................................................191 RHODE ISLAND ......................................................................................194 SOUTH CAROLINA ..................................................................................196 SOUTH DAKOTA.....................................................................................198 TENNESSEE ..........................................................................................200 TEXAS .................................................................................................204 UTAH ..................................................................................................213 VERMONT.............................................................................................220 VIRGINIA ..............................................................................................221 WASHINGTON........................................................................................225 WEST VIRGINIA .....................................................................................229 WISCONSIN...........................................................................................234 WYOMING.............................................................................................238 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Twice in the last 12 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water-Quality Standards, Maximum Loads, and the Clean Water Act: the Eedn for Judicial Enforcement Lawrence S
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 34 | Issue 5 Article 9 5-1983 Water-Quality Standards, Maximum Loads, and the Clean Water Act: The eedN for Judicial Enforcement Lawrence S. Bazel Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lawrence S. Bazel, Water-Quality Standards, Maximum Loads, and the Clean Water Act: The Need for Judicial Enforcement, 34 Hastings L.J. 1245 (1983). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol34/iss5/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comments Water-Quality Standards, Maximum Loads, and the Clean Water Act: The Need for Judicial Enforcement In 1972, Congress replaced the existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act with what has become known as the Clean Water Act.' a complicated 2 and ambitious program in- The new Act established 3 tended to eliminate water pollution. Congress incorporated two methods of pollution control into the Act. The first regulates wastewater discharges; it requires all point sources,4 which are primarily industries and municipalities, to use the "best practicable" and "best available" technologies for treating waste- water.5 The second method regulates the cleanliness of the nation's waters. Simply described, it requires federal and state pollution-con- trol agencies to find pollution problems and solve them. To find problems, the agencies must divide the nation's waters into segments, set water-quality standards (WQS) for each segment, and discover which segments are violating their WQS.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law
    McGeorge Law Review Volume 19 Issue 4 Article 3 1-1-1988 Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law William R. Attwater State Water Resources Control Board James Markle State Water Resources Control Board Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William R. Attwater & James Markle, Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law, 19 PAC. L. J. 957 (1988). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol19/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law William R. Attwater* and James Markle** CONTENTS Part One - Water Rights in California .......................... 959 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 959 A. Beginnings ..................................................... 960 B. The World Rushes In ...................................... 961 II. THE PROPRIETARY ERA ........................................... 962 A. Appropriative Rights ....................................... 962 1. A Period of Development ........................... 964 2. Doctrine of Relation .................................. 964 3. Changes in Exercise of Appropriative Rights .. 965 4. Use of Natural Channels for Conveyance ...... 965 5. 1872 Civil Code Provisions ......................... 966 6. Statutory Forfeiture of Appropriative Rights .. 967 7. Reasonableness of Use and Diversion of Water .. .. .. ........... 9 67 8. Federal Land Laws .................................... 968 B. Prescriptive Rights ........................................... 969 * B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Utah (1961); J.D., University of Washington (1965). William Attwater has been the Chief Counsel for the State Water Resources Control Board since 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mining Law Review
    The Mining Law Review Fifth Edition Editor Erik Richer La FlÈche Law Business Research The Mining Law Review Fifth Edition Editor Erik Richer La FlÈche Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Gideon Roberton SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Thomas Lee SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Felicity Bown, Joel Woods ACCOUNT MANAGERS Jessica Parsons, Jesse Rae Farragher MARKETING COORDINATOR Rebecca Mogridge EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Gavin Jordan HEAD OF PRODUCTION Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Claire Ancell SUBEDITOR Janina Godowska CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Paul Howarth Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2016 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of October 2016, be advised that this is a developing area. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to Law Business Research, at the address above. Enquiries concerning editorial content should be directed to the Publisher – [email protected] ISBN 978-1-910813-30-0 Printed in Great Britain by Encompass Print Solutions,
    [Show full text]
  • An Artificial Distinction: Addressing Water Quantity Concerns Under the Clean Water Act
    An Artificial Distinction: Addressing water quantity concerns under the Clean Water Act Merritt Frey, River Network, September 2011 “Petitioners also assert…that the Clean Water Act is only concerned with water “quality,” and does not allow the regulation of water “quantity.” This is an artificial distinction.” Justice O’Connor writing for the Supreme Court in 511 U.S. 700(1994) (writing for the majority) Although fish and others who rely on our rivers don’t see the separation, our legal system has long treated water quality and quantity as unrelated concerns. Water quality is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act, while state laws govern water quantity. Aquatic and riparian habitat protection and restoration has been even more removed – when habitat issues are addressed at all, it is through a hodge-podge of statutes, regulations and voluntary programs at the federal, state and local level. Even within our landmark water quality law – the Clean Water Act – biological and physical components of our river systems have received far less attention than traditional chemical pollution issues. Although this is slowly changing, the power of the Act has not truly been brought to bear on issues of quantity or habitat. The goal of the paper is to identify Clean Water Act and related tools that could be better used to drive in-stream flow and habitat restoration and protection efforts. Our research focuses heavily on flow protection and restoration, but touches on habitat issues where appropriate. Our findings focus on several policy areas – including better utilizing bioassessement data, developing and implementing strong water quality standards, applying the states’ 401 water quality certification power more broadly to flow and habitat issues, and expanding creative use of the Total Maximum Daily Load program to better identify and remedy habitat and/or flow- related impairments.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcing Environmental Standards Under State Law: the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act Kenneth M
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 57 | Number 2 Winter 1997 Enforcing Environmental Standards Under State Law: The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act Kenneth M. Murchison Repository Citation Kenneth M. Murchison, Enforcing Environmental Standards Under State Law: The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, 57 La. L. Rev. (1997) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol57/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Enforcing Environmental Standards Under State Law: The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act Kenneth M.Murchison" In the United States, analysis of environmental law tends to concentrate on federal law. The focus is understandable given the primacy of federal law in the field and the diversity of state environmental statutes. Nonetheless, the focus is unfortunate with respect to enforcement issues. Major federal statutes envision that states will assume primary responsibility for routine enforcement, subject always to the oversight of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).' Understanding state law relating to enforcement is, therefore, an essential step for evaluating the effectiveness of pollution control legislation in the United States. This Article analyzes the statutory provisions for enforcing environmental standards in Louisiana. After a brief overview of the state's constitutional protection for the environment and the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act,' the Article describes the methods the Act provides for detecting violations; analyzes the statute's provisions for administrative sanctions and emergency orders, civil actions initiated by the government, criminal prosecutions, and enforcement by private parties; and compares the state provisions to analogous provisions of federal law.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Regulations Handbook for Small Communities
    Everything You Wanted to Know About Environmental Regulations And Related Programs…. But Were Afraid to Ask! A Guide for EPA Region 8 Small Communities 2010 Revised Edition Preface This handbook was prepared by Region 8 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with small units of local government (communities) in mind. The handbook was prepared for use by officials of such communities as a quick reference to information on environmental regulations, related programs and associated issues facing their constituencies. Information presented in this handbook is meant only as a summary of basic environmental requirements and/or EPA guidance. It is not intended to serve as a definitive statement of the specific ways in which a community can ensure environmental compliance. Rather, it is a quick guide to the environmental regulatory and associated programs that typically apply to most small communities. The requirements and guidance described in this handbook are based on federal regulations and/or guidance documents in place in the fall of 2010. It should be expected that some of these requirements and associated guidance documents will change in the future. In addition to the federal requirements described here, states and Indian tribes can adopt rules that may be different and, in some cases, more stringent than the federal rules. Be sure to ask for and read the rules from the appropriate agency in your area. This handbook is intended only as a reference source. The statutory provisions and regulations described in this document contain legally binding requirement but this document does not itself create any legal rights, benefits, or obligations. EPA may deviate from any approach described in this document in a given case if consistent with legal requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • At the Confluence of the Clean Water Act and Prior Appropriation
    At the Confluence of the Clean Water Act and Prior Appropriation The Challenge and Ways Forward At the Confluence of the Clean Water Act and Prior Appropriation The Challenge and Ways Forward Adam Schempp Director, Western Water Program February 2013 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Environmental Law Institute. It was authored by Adam Schempp with editorial assistance from Jay Austin, Jim McElfish, and Jessye Waxman and research assistance from Katelyn Huber, Wesley Rosenfeld, and Philip Womble. The author wishes to thank all the individuals who gave their candid observations about water quality and quantity programs in ELI’s interviews as well as those who helped in reviewing the informa- tion contained in this report. Those individuals include: Carl Adams, Peter Anderson, John Barnes, Bob Barwin, Linda Bassi, John Bender, Reed Benson, Paul Bossert, Nathan Bracken, Susan Braley, Helen Bresler, Marti Bridges, Andy Brummond, Travis Burns, Thomas Cappiello, Aaron Citron, Boyd Clayton, Brad Daniels, Mark Derichsweiler, John Echeverria, Mike Ell, Garland Erbele, Susan France, Cindy Gilder, Phil Hegeman, John Heggeness, Heidi Henderson, Pam Homer, Russell Husen, Jason King, Marty Link, Larry MacDonnell, Sharon Megdal, Shannon Minerich, Phil Moershel, Bill Painter, Tom Paul, Gary Prokosch, Kevin Rein, Janet Ronald, DL Sanders, Andy Sawyer, Bob Shaver, John Shields, MaryLou Smith, Robin Smith, Tom Stiles, Linda Stitzer, Clive Strong, Jason Sutter, Karen Tarnow, Mike Thompson, Patrick Tyrrell, Karla Urbanowicz, John Wagner, Mike Walton, Phil Ward, Dean Yashan, and Anne Yates. The ultimate conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are solely those of ELI. About ELI Publications— ELI publishes Research Reports that present the analysis and conclusions of the policy studies ELI undertakes to improve environmental law and policy.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Federal Clean Water Regulations
    History of Federal Clean Water Regulations Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. It authorized the Surgeon General to prepare comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries; and for improving the sanitary conditions of surface and underground waters. This statute also authorized the Federal Works Administrator to assist states, municipalities and interstate agencies in constructing treatment plants to prevent discharges of inadequately treated sewerage into other waters and tributaries. Since 1948, the original law has been repeatedly amended to authorize additional water quality programs, to impose standards and procedures governing allowable discharges and to provide funding for specific goals contained within the statute. Clean Water Act of 1972 November 3, 1952 Cuyahoga River fire (photo credit James Thomas, from Cleveland Press Collection, Cleveland State University Library) It seemed impossible, as a nation, we had allowed our waterways to become so polluted that they caught on fire. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio erupted in fire several times beginning as early as 1868. On June 22, 1969, a Cuyahoga River fire caught the attention of Time Magazine. Time Magazine focused the nation's attention on the pollution of the Cuyahoga River: “Some river! Chocolate-brown, oily, bubbling with subsurface gases, it oozes rather than flows. ‘Anyone who falls into the Cuyahoga does not drown,’ Cleveland's citizens joke grimly. ‘He decays.’” This seminal event spurred an avalanche of pollution control activities ultimately resulting in the Clean Water Act and the creation of the federal and state Environmental Protection Agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Superfund Laws
    Chapter VIII SUPERFUND LAWS In the aftermath of Love Canal and other revelations of the improper disposal of hazardous substances, the federal and state governments enacted the “Superfund” laws to address these problems. Generally these laws address remediation of spills and dumps, rather than regulation of current conduct, and hold parties liable to cleanup contamination resulting from activities that may have been legal. They have resulted in extensive litigation, widespread concerns about environmental liabilities, and expensive cleanups. A. CERCLA The federal Superfund law is entitled the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §9601, et seq. It was extensively amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (“SARA”), and further amendments were made in 2002 by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. 1. Basic Scheme CERCLA provides a framework for the cleanup of the “release” or threatened release” of hazardous substances into the environment. EPA can take action to clean up hazardous substances using funds from the multi-billion dollar “Superfund” (raised by excise taxes on certain chemical feedstocks and crude oil), and then seek reimbursement from “responsible parties.” Alternatively, it can require responsible parties to clean up a site. “Hazardous substances” are defined to include hazardous wastes under RCRA, hazardous substances and toxic pollutants under Clean Water Act §§311(b)(2)(A) and 307(a), 33 U.S.C. 23 §§1321(b)(2)(A) and 1317(a), hazardous air pollutants under Clean Air Act §112, 42 U.S.C. §7412(a), any “imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture” designated under Toxic Substances Control Act §7, 15 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality and (In)Equality: the Continuing Struggle to Protect Penobscot Sustenance Fishing Rights in Maine
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2019 Water Quality and (In)Equality: The Continuing Struggle to Protect Penobscot Sustenance Fishing Rights in Maine Allison M. Dussias Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Dussias, Allison M., "Water Quality and (In)Equality: The Continuing Struggle to Protect Penobscot Sustenance Fishing Rights in Maine" (2019). Connecticut Law Review. 424. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/424 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 51 AUGUST 2019 NUMBER 4 Article Water Quality and (In)Equality: The Continuing Struggle to Protect Penobscot Sustenance Fishing Rights in Maine ALLISON M. DUSSIAS Since 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the State of Maine, and the Penobscot Nation of Maine have been engaged in litigation over Maine’s proposed Water Quality Standards (“WQS”) to be issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The EPA rejected some of the State’s proposed WQS because they were not adequate to protect the right of members of the Penobscot Nation to fish for sustenance. The EPA took the position that waters where tribes exercise fishing rights must have WQS that are sufficient to ensure that tribal members can harvest fish for sustenance without endangering their health through exposure to dangerous levels of mercury and other toxins. Moreover, in determining permissible pollutant levels, fish consumption rates should not be determined on the basis of current consumption rates, which are suppressed due to health concerns, but rather on the basis of unsuppressed fish consumption rates. The EPA’s decision was bolstered by the importance of fishing to cultural preservation and the federal government’s trust responsibility toward the Penobscot Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Filing Whistleblower Complaints Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
    FactSheet Filing Whistleblower Complaints under the Safe Drinking Water Act Employees are protected from retaliation for reporting alleged violations regarding all waters actually and potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources. Covered Employees • Denying overtime or promotion The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) prohibits • Disciplining employers from retaliating against employees • Denying benefits for engaging in protected activities pertaining to • Failure to hire or rehire alleged violations of actual or potential drinking • Intimidation water from above or underground sources • Making threats designed for consumption. • Reassignment affecting prospects for promotion Coverage extends to all private sector, federal, • Reducing pay or hours state and municipal employees, and to employees of Indian Tribes in the United States. Deadline for Filing Complaints Protected Activity Complaints must be filed within 30 days after the alleged unfavorable employment action occurs A person may not discharge or in any manner (that is, when the employee is notified of the retaliate against an employee because the retaliatory action). employee: How to File a SDWA Complaint • Provided (or is about to provide) information An employee, or representative of an employee, relating to a violation of the SDWA to the who believes he or she has been retaliated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against in violation of SDWA, may file a complaint or other appropriate Federal agency or with OSHA. Complaints may be filed verbally department; with OSHA by visiting or calling the local OSHA • Testified or was about to testify in any such office at 1-800-321-OSHA (6742), or may be filed proceeding under this statute; in writing by sending a written complaint to the • Refused to perform duties in good faith, closest OSHA regional or area office, or by filing based on a reasonable belief that the working a complaint online at www.whistleblowers.gov/ conditions are unsafe and unhealthful; complaint_page.html.
    [Show full text]
  • A Public Health Legal Guide to Safe Drinking Water
    A Public Health Legal Guide to Safe Drinking Water Prepared by Alisha Duggal, Shannon Frede, and Taylor Kasky, student attorneys in the Public Health Law Clinic at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, under the supervision of Professors Kathleen Hoke and William Piermattei. Generous funding provided by the Partnership for Public Health Law, comprised of the American Public Health Association, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, National Association of County & City Health Officials, and the National Association of Local Boards of Health August 2015 THE PROBLEM: DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION Clean drinking water is essential to public health. Contaminated water is a grave health risk and, despite great progress over the past 40 years, continues to threaten U.S. communities’ health and quality of life. Our water resources still lack basic protections, making them vulnerable to pollution from fracking, farm runoff, industrial discharges and neglected water infrastructure. In the U.S., treatment and distribution of safe drinking water has all but eliminated diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery and hepatitis A that continue to plague many parts of the world. However, despite these successes, an estimated 19.5 million Americans fall ill each year from drinking water contaminated with parasites, bacteria or viruses. In recent years, 40 percent of the nation’s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once.1 Those violations ranged from failing to maintain proper paperwork to allowing carcinogens into tap water. Approximately 23 million people received drinking water from municipal systems that violated at least one health-based standard.2 In some cases, these violations can cause sickness quickly; in others, pollutants such as inorganic toxins and heavy metals can accumulate in the body for years or decades before contributing to serious health problems.
    [Show full text]