with (S787) The Clean Water Restoration Act and (S696) The Appalachia Restoration Act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01water.html

http://www.ilovemountains.org/press/495


Supreme Court decisions and definition changes in the original Clean Water Act have reduced the ability of the EPA to ensure that America's waters are "Swimmable and Fishable". These Restoration acts should give the Original Clean Water Act the balls needed to live up to its intent of protecting America's waterways.



Neither of these bills are receiving much attention, So I wanted to bring the subject up for discussion. While there is some obvious opposition, both of these bills seem like no-brainers to me: restore the Clean Water Act to its original intent. Politically, they could serve as easy victories going into the 2010 elections (for either Democrats or Republicans)

3/3/2010 1:09:10 PM

Quote :

"(S696) The Appalachia Restoration Act"

Thank god, the Appalachian Trail will finally be hikable.

^Good find though, sounds like good news to me.

3/3/2010 1:37:45 PM

Why do all water ways need to be "Swimmable and Fishable" regardless of the cost? Why is a cost/benefit analysis not allowed for such things?

3/3/2010 3:06:30 PM

Quote :

"Why do all water ways need to be "Swimmable and Fishable" regardless of the cost?"

Because everyone has an equal right to common property, and America's waters are common property. If I own a pond in my backyard, you can't just pollute in it; and if everyone owns America's waters, you can't just pollute in them.

Quote :

"Why is a cost/benefit analysis not allowed for such things?"

...Same reason one isn't allowed for you polluting my pond, stealing my wallet, or any other crime -- it's a crime. And even if you did allow one, is there really any amount of benefit from polluting that justifies the cost to private property or to commonly owned property (the environment)?


Some conservatives need to be more conservation-minded.

3/3/2010 4:35:09 PM

I, for one, am glad that the Supreme Court put an end to the gross abuse of power that the EPA exhibited when they interpreted "navigable waterways" to include trickling streams, isolated ponds on private property and dry riverbeds.

3/3/2010 4:53:09 PM

^^^it's an interesting question and not one that I am totally against, however

-There would be a pretty big discrepancy on the dollar amount people would assign to the costs/benefits. Some in the community might think that being able to fish or swim in their local river is priceless (or very highly valued), while others might try to just assign tourism dollars brought in to the local community as the benefit of having a clean river. Industry might try to frame the cost of pollution in dollars spent by the local community on healthcare (assuming said pollution causes sickness), but the people of the community would probably hold their health as worth much more. The same goes for trying to assign a cost to the natural function and natural processes of a clean river (like providing nutrient rich silt to a farmer's field) etc etc.

-Most of the time water is connected. Polluting one body of water means that eventually the pollution will make it to another water body. Any cost/benefits would also have to take into account users downstream of the pollution source.

-Water is a public resource. To me this means any cost/benefit would have to take into account future users and what their potential uses of the water might be.

-If the past is any indication, the areas that would be most beneficial to be used as pollution dumps would be poor areas. Poor people are cheaper to buy out or convince that pollution is a benefit to them; some might see this as ok (the poor people are deciding what they themselves are worth) but I see it as exploitation (some peoples lives are worth less than others)

-I personally believe that a majority of Americans believe in having clean (relatively) waters. I dont have any stats or polls to back this up, its just a hunch (I could be way off).



In some ways the Clean Water Act may already act like a Cost/Benefit. I used "swimmable and fishable" b/c that is the language the CWA uses. However, most of the Max pollutant levels allowed in a water body are related to human safety (atleast in the EPAs opinion). That is they believe the cost to the health of the community is greater than any benefits to industry.

This doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see a Cost/Benefit performed. Would you be suprised if the analysis showed that we should be more stringent on pollution and have cleaner rivers?

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM. Reason : arrows]

Quote :

"I, for one, am glad that the Supreme Court put an end to the gross abuse of power that the EPA exhibited when they interpreted "navigable waterways" to include trickling streams, isolated ponds on private property and dry riverbeds. "

Like I mentioned earlier, all water is interconnected. Trickling streams eventually make their way to rivers, ponds are recharge points for groundwater, and dry riverbeds are only dry for part of the year. The Clean Water Restoration Act will remove these questions anyway. And the "abuse" the EPA exhibited should also be credited with the improvement we have seen in our surface waters since the 1970s.


Here is a pretty good link discussing the constitutionality of the Clean Water Act
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Clean%20Water%20Act%20Issue%20Brief.pdf

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM. Reason : tha quote]

3/3/2010 4:57:49 PM

Quote :

"While there is some obvious opposition"

Like whom? Unless it's just some asshat hypercapitalist who sees the EPA merely as an obstacle to their greed anyways.

This is amazing news. More stuff like this needs to happen. I wonder how/if this will effect http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/7138538/.

3/3/2010 5:05:47 PM

Quote :

"Why do all water ways need to be "Swimmable and Fishable" regardless of the cost? Why is a cost/benefit analysis not allowed for such things?"

yes. all water flows downhill. if it's polluted upstream, then it gets polluted downstream.

3/3/2010 5:31:03 PM

Opposition to the Appalachia Restoration act is mostly Mining Companies that participate in Mountaintop removal, I think it would pretty much put an end to the practice.

Ranchers are the only ones I have seen (thus far) that are opposed to the Clean Water Restoration Act. They are afraid farm ponds or spray fields or possibly ag runoff will be regulated. Im concerned about this (although in some cases they need regulation) but there are already pretty significant provisions for farm ponds in the Clean water act, and I doubt Ag runoff will somehow suddenly be regulated b/c of the restoration act; its going to take a new bill to do that.


^^ I dont think the Clean Water Act includes any provisions for non-point source pollution which is what parking lot runoff and construction sedimentation would be included under. Again Im not totally sure about this. I think only North Carolina rules apply.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2010 5:32:15 PM

^You're pretty much right about the non-point source stuff. They ARE counted in total amounts of allowable pollution, but they aren't regulated under the EPA. And I really agree with that, it wouldn't be feasible for the CAA to regulate non-point sources or private homes for instance.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

3/3/2010 5:45:58 PM

I think that some people in this thread don't understand what a "cost-benefit analysis" really is.

3/4/2010 3:07:19 AM

They are horrible. I had to do one for a local government program last semester as a part of my public policy analysis class (taught buy a guy w/ his doctorate in economics) in the Master of Public Administration graduate program. A lot of people seem to think of a cost-benefit analysis without willingness-to-pay. It isn't about making profit on the whole. Monetizing that shit, doing the discounting, and sensitivity analysis was a pain and it was one of the longest papers/projects I've ever done in my academic career (second only to a grant for philosophy research paper) and I had it easy since local government projects are no where near the scale of federal level stuff. My prof for that class said that the EPA only considers them worthwhile to do if they the impact is expected to be massive (maybe something like $100 million or more). Despite my derision, I think they are a good thing that should probably be used more often.

One of the most amusing things from the class was how CBAs got politicized, specifically with one aspect: the value of a statistical life. Apparently they wanted to make the value of a statistical life more accurate by decreasing it for seniors. This would mean that in figuring out how much people would value EPA actions (which most help the young and do little or nothing for seniors given how much time it takes to go from Cost-Benefit Analysis to completed project impacts) they wouldn't be over valuing seniors willingness-to-pay for things that would help them. It was something that would ultimately help seniors. But as soon as the AARP heard a reduction the value of a seniors life (not understanding what a statistical life was), they lobbied against it the evaluation measurement, stopping it, to their own detriment.

3/4/2010 3:34:10 AM

The EPA didn't seem to care much some private citizen's life was being destroyed because they had a irrigation ditch on their property that filled with rainwater.

The arrogance of EPA people has caused the agency to lose influence. They aren't seen any longer as protector of major water supplies, but as another multitude of officials sent by the imperial federal gov't to eat out the substance of the people.

3/4/2010 10:39:07 AM

wut?

3/4/2010 11:20:56 AM

It's not a tough concept. The EPA (among others) habitually oversteps it's regulatory authority, punishing landowners and businesses above and beyond the scope of the law. Their ridiculous application of the clean water act is only one example. It's a shame that the victims of this abuse of power have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars taking this fight all the way to the supreme court.

3/4/2010 11:33:04 AM

I'm not defending the EPA, but we do need environment protections.
Property owners do NOT have a right to create and destroy nature as they see fit.
The Earth is a web of fragile ecosystems, not a piñata.

3/4/2010 11:49:32 AM

^^I understand the concept: You dont think pollution to water bodies should be regulated.


I needed EarthDogg to expand his first sentence, it sounded like he had a specific example, but I didnt quite follow.



As for overstepping their bounds, the original intent of the Clean Water Act was to regulate all american waters (atleast that is how it was interpreted from 1972 - 2001) and it will do so again if the Clean Water Restoration Act passes. I already posted this article discussing the constitutionality, if you dont agree with its interpretation, then we just have an obvious difference of opinion:
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Clean%20Water%20Act%20Issue%20Brief.pdf


also , violators are rarely "punished",

http://www.rivernetwork.org/blog/11/2009/09/14/new-york-times-chronicles-clean-water-act-enforcement-failures

Quote :

"the Times’s research shows that fewer than 3 percent of Clean Water Act violations resulted in fines or other significant punishments by state officials. And the E.P.A. has often declined to prosecute polluters or force states to strengthen their enforcement by threatening to withhold federal money or take away powers the agency has delegated to state officials.""

3/4/2010 12:15:36 PM

Quote :

"The arrogance of EPA people has caused the agency to lose influence"

nail ----> head

3/4/2010 1:09:24 PM

Check out this quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01water.html?pagewanted=2

Quote :

"“The game plan is to emphasize the scary possibilities,” said one member of the Waters Advocacy Coalition, which has fought the legislation and is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Home Builders and other groups representing industries affected by the Clean Water Act. “If you can get Glenn Beck to say that government storm troopers are going to invade your property, farmers in the Midwest will light up their congressmen’s switchboards,” said the coalition member, who asked not to be identified because he thought his descriptions would anger other coalition participants. "

3/5/2010 10:00:13 AM

BTTT to see if anyone else wants to contribute


here is a good article on water quality before the EPA got all "arrogant"


http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/cuyahoga_river_fire_40_years_a.html

3/9/2010 10:59:12 AM

who cares, everyone drinks bottled water anyway.

3/9/2010 11:07:35 AM

^too rich for my blood

3/9/2010 11:17:54 AM

I was kidding

hell, I drink the (unfiltered) tap water in my house.

3/9/2010 11:51:21 AM

And why couldn't the city or state deal with that problem? Oh, that's right, they were. I tried to find the graph of water aggregate quality before and after the clean water act was passed. Water quality was already improving before the bill passed and the slope did not change one bit, because state governments were already on the case, and it turns out that only state and local governments have the incentive and local knowledge necessary to actually fight pollution. As such, all the federal government did was create yet more bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing. Well, almost nothing: it allows federal politicians to take credit for the diligent work of state and local governments.

3/9/2010 11:57:59 AM

Quote :

"And why couldn't the city or state deal with that problem?"

the funny thing about water is that it doesn't respect city limits or state boundaries.

pollution in one state with slack regulations can (believe it or not) negatively impact the quality of water in other states. As a result, states (let alone cities) will not always be able to address water quality issues. Example, pollution from paper mill in North Carolina impacted water quality in Tennessee. Water quality was not improved until there was a huge controversy and the EPA threatened to intervene in 1988:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford,_Tennessee#The_Pigeon_River_Pollution_Controversy

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM. Reason : ``]

3/9/2010 12:24:49 PM

^^^lol I know





^^True, State and local governments are mostly responsible for administering the CWA. They mostly do a good job and I think some states have even gone above and beyond the CWA. The rules in the CWA are more of a baseline that the EPA thinks everyone should follow. If one state were more lax with its regulations and its waters flowed into another state, it could obviously create some pretty big disputes.


But you dont have to look very far to find states that have buddied up with certain industries, and then allowed or even defended these businesses pollution

West Virginia/Kentucky and Coal Mining

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/09/14/ny-times-blockbuster-on-coal-and-dirty-water/

Quote :

"Of course, that doesn’t tell the whole story … We know that the WVDEP went for four or five years — maybe more — without even looking at the monthly pollution discharge reports that coal companies file. WVDEP started doing so only after the federal EPA came into the state and won a record $20 million Clean Water Act settlement from Massey Energy. And since then, WVDEP has been entering into private settlements with coal operators, in a move environmental groups say is aimed at avoiding citizen lawsuits that might bring larger penalties and tougher compliance schedules. The Times article also includes an interesting story about Huffman’s predecessor, Stephanie Timmermeyer, in which former WVDEP mining director Matt Crum alleges Timmermeyer fired her under orders from a state lawmaker with close ties to the coal industry after he tried to enforce the law: "

Iowa and the Hog industry

http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_archives/2007/5/10/2939389.html

Quote :

"Some of the answers to those questions are obvious to anyone familiar with the influence of big money in politics. First, the Iowa Farm Bureau and other agribusiness groups—who lobby relentlessly for the privileges of CAFO owners over the rights of ordinary citizens—made campaign contributions to legislators of both parties and both legislative houses. That was the carrot—with promise of more carrots to come. Second, those same organizations employed an army of lobbyists to incessantly hammer any legislator who dared consider voting against their directive that there be no legislation regulating CAFOs. That was the stick—with promise of a heavier stick being used on them in the next election cycle if they stepped out of line. Even though this session produced no legislation to protect Iowa citizens from the out-of-control CAFO industry, members of the Coalition for Local Control are not about to throw in the towel. We will redouble our efforts next year. We are welcoming new allies and a broader base of support. "

I'll try to find some more examples, but sometimes states get pushed around by big money, Im not saying this doesnt happen at the Federal Level, but the EPA seems to be less susceptable (atleast as far as the CWA is concerned)

Sometimes the EPA has to step in and make sure everyone is atleast meeting their baseline (often they dont do anything though)

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 12:48 PM. Reason : arrows]

3/9/2010 12:47:51 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/fundamental-misunderstand_b_504905.html

Quote :

"But, according Adora Andy, spokeswoman for EPA, today's protest "is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of EPA's role. Adora went on to explain that the EPA does not regulate the mining industry, but is only "responsible for ensuring that projects comply with the Clean Water Act." Except it's the mining industry that isn't complying with the Clean Water Act. She added: "Instead of "holding up" permits, Andy said, EPA is working with coal companies and the Army Corps to reduce the amount of waste dumped or the number of valleys filled." And that's the kicker that Appalachia is expecting: Now that the EPA has reportedly handed over 73 of the 79 massive mountaintop removal operation permits that were in advance review, the fate of the Appalachian health and well-being is now in the hands of the Army Corps. And here's the real fundamental misunderstanding: Mountaintop removal, which provides only 8 percent of our national coal production, is a needless crime--one of the most egregious human rights and environmental violations today. If mountaintop removal waste-dumping operations are in clear violation of the Clean Water Act, as panels of scientists and the EPA and Jackson have noted, then MTR or MTM operations still remain in violation of the Clean Water Act, even if the EPA and Army Corp strike a compromise to reduce the amount of waste dumped. Following a nearly 40-year policy, Lisa Jackson thinks she can "minimize" and regulate the impact of mountaintop removal, despite the overwhelming evidence by a recent scientific study that, "the science is so overwhelming that the only conclusion that one can reach is that mountaintop mining needs to be stopped." "

Some insight as to why the EPA wont get off its Fat ass? despite all the hype, Im totally unimpressed with Lisa Jackson

3/19/2010 10:12:16 AM

Quote :

"But you dont have to look very far to find states that have buddied up with certain industries, and then allowed or even defended these businesses pollution"

And is it your opinion that government does not have the right to do this? When you politicize something, you are granting politicians the right to decide what is and is not acceptable. The laws cut both ways: by putting politicians in charge of managing pollution, you are revoking not just the rights of polluters to pollute, but the victims right to seek damages.

3/19/2010 1:13:07 PM

well, I suppose governments have the right to do it, they are just representing their "constituency" after all.


I just find it unethical for a division of government that is charged with protecting the states environment and keeping the people safe to bend over for whomever can write the biggest check.

Quote :

"but the victims right to seek damages"

Which is exactly why we need the Clean Water Restoration act to pass. Suing the EPA for not enforcing the CWA can be pretty effective.

3/19/2010 1:41:58 PM

Pretty effective job security for lawyers and driving up costs for the rest of us. If you want to fight pollution, then in the current politicized system your only choice is to influence the legislature. Making tax payers pay such costs is unlikely to impact the decisions of legislators.

3/19/2010 2:31:32 PM

Quote :

"Pretty effective job security for lawyers and driving up costs for the rest of us."

You act like lawyers wouldn't be involved otherwise, and some of us think that there is more at stake than the cost of some product that is being sold to us.

Quote :

"If you want to fight pollution, then in the current politicized system your only choice is to influence the legislature"

By influence do you mean contribute money? I could research the issues and what my representative did or didnt vote for: and then vote in my local election accordingly. I can write letters to my representative.

3/19/2010 2:44:23 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/26/26greenwire-epa-proposes-veto-of-permit-for-major-mountain-90328.html

Quote :

"EPA Proposes Veto of Permit for Major Mountaintop-Removal Coal Mine "

Aww yeah, slowly getting the wheels moving

3/31/2010 4:38:02 PM

The Clean Estuaries act of 2010 also slowly making its way through congress, it would be an amendment to the CLean Water Act.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4715/show

4/19/2010 4:48:45 PM

^^ kind of ironic considering its much safer than underground mining.

4/19/2010 5:02:06 PM

True, unfortunately it is much more damaging to the environment and local communities.


The veto of that permit was unrelated to the recent mine disaster (they were talking about it well before), except that it may have given the EPA/Obama administration the political capital to go after Massey Energy.

4/19/2010 5:11:15 PM

I mean you have 3 options. Underground mining + the dead miners that go with it. Surface mining + the ecological damage that goes with it. Or get rid of coal.

We should aim for the last one, but its going to take a while. Meantime, is it cheaper to fix/prevent damaged land than it is to prevent/handle dead miners?

4/19/2010 5:14:33 PM

Its an interesting situation, and I'd like to say I don't advocate for the end of mountaintop removal because I want to see miners lose jobs or end up dead in underground mines.

but consider this too:

The recent mine disaster probably could have been prevented if safety rules had been followed.

and

Mountaintop removal only produces something like 10% of the total coal exported out of appalachia. A switch to Mountaintop removal mining also requires fewer jobs than underground mines (so miners lose jobs anyways)




and

Mountaintop removal's effects on the environment can mean health and safety problems for local communities (if their water supply is affected, etc). There have also been some reports of blasting near dams that keep mine tailings from flooding communities (could be a situation similar to that TVA ash pond accident a year ago or so)


As for the actual monetary cost of dealing with dead miners vs. dealing with dead land, I have no idea. Its sad to admit, but my hunch is that it may be more expensive to remediate land.

[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ..]

4/19/2010 5:26:12 PM

the way i see it, even if underground mining safety standards are met, its still much more of a hazzard than surface mining. In addition, if the permitting process is good I dont see why you couldn't make surface mining meet certain requirements for water safety. It seems like it would be easier to do surface mining safely (both environmentally and personally) than it is for the fed to keep track of underground mining safety.

The fed has obviously failed repeatedly to enforce underground mining safety standards. Im not too familiar with their surface mining enforcement.

The irony being that in that other thread on the topic, people were all "durr durr free market failure!!" when clearly the free market wanted to move to MTR, which is safer.

4/19/2010 5:36:40 PM

Quote :

"As for the actual monetary cost of dealing with dead miners vs. dealing with dead land, I have no idea. Its sad to admit, but my hunch is that it may be more expensive to remediate land. "

yea thats what i was thinking. However, theres gotta be a way they could make MTR safe to communities via a throrough permiting process.

4/19/2010 5:38:20 PM

I agree that surface mining will almost always be safer than underground mining.

As for permitting, the EPA issued new water quality requirements for permits in response to some of the issues they were having with these mines. It basically means they will have to be more careful with the mine tailings instead of dumping them into streams. According to the mine owners, they wont be able to afford to operate. Time will tell if thats true, but it seems if you want MTR to stick around you'd have to lower the water standards.

which personally I'm against.

As for the free market, I would make the argument that it was actually moving away from MTR. The new requirements will just make the price of coal mined using MTR actually reflect the real cost it took to dig it out of the ground + the damage it caused the environment and local communities. Which is apparently not competitive with coal from underground mines. Coal is pretty heavily subsidized in general IMO.

4/19/2010 8:45:38 PM

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/04/21/new-wvu-va-tech-study-links-water-quality-and-cancer-deaths-in-west-virginia-coalfields/

Quote :

"New WVU-Va Tech study links water quality and cancer deaths in West Virginia coalfields"

Quote :

"West Virginians who live near streams polluted by coal mining are more likely to die of cancer, according to a first-of-its kind study published by researchers at West Virginia University and Virginia Tech."

Be sure to click on the link to look at a nasty west virginian stream too.

4/23/2010 7:58:34 AM

American Rivers released its list of endangered rivers

http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/mer-2010/gauley_factsheet_2010.pdf

Coming in at #3 is the much loved Gauley River in West Virginia. Its Headwater streams are threatened by proposed mountaintop removal mines




and it doesn't quite fit in the thread but the Little River here in NC also is on the list due to a proposed City of Raleigh Dam.
http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/mer-2010/littleriver_factsheet_2010.pdf

6/2/2010 10:08:08 AM

Going back to the posts about cost/benefit:

I stumbled on this study today. I've only read the summary so far but the short version is the authors believe that "restoring" the Great Lakes could benefit the local economies by up to twice the initial investment.

http://www.healthylakes.org/site_upload/upload/America_s_North_Coast_Report_07.pdf

Quote :

"Based on a present-value total investment of $26 billion in ecological restoration, the study calculates the following present-value economic benefits: • Over $50 billion in long-term benefits to the national economy; and • Between $30 and $50 billion in short term benefits to the regional economy."

7/1/2010 4:45:56 PM