Loopholes in the Clean Water Act The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's water. The intent is admirable but the execution is ineffective because its outdated, large companies abuse it, and lobbyist sabotage any progress to update the regulations.
Many events that led up to the creation of the Clean Water Act, one example is the 1960s was the peak of the environmental problems throughout the country water pollution was at all-time high. The effects of polluted waters on public health become a hot topic, citizens demanded the government do something about it (Clark). This lead to the creation of the environmental protection agency by President Nixon …show more content…
Prior to this time, nobody blinked twice about polluting the environment. The Act was a controversial topic because it was the first time in 200 years, regulations for polluting the water were put into action. The water pollution is such a broad topic that the Clean Water Act broken it into five categories: research and related programs, grants for construction and treatment of works, standards and enforcement, permits and licenses, general provisions. Each category has various sub-topics that can be broken down further into sections. The loopholes are often found in these segments because the word choice is so vague. Richard Schwartz, a veteran environmental attorney at Crowell & Moring points out "The act doesn't tell you very much," he said. "It refers to navigable waters and defines them as waters of the United States. But there are so many possible variations of facts, and the Clean Water Act says so little that there is just so much room for …show more content…
Property laws state if it’s a privately own property the owner can do anything the please and the government cannot interfere. Even the Supreme Court couldn’t do anything about it. In the case of Sackett v. EPA (2011) examined a citizen right to question the EPA's authority. When a couple wanted to build a home near a wetland. The EPA told them couldn’t build the house because they were too close to the wetland, and building a home would disrupt the local ecosystem. The couple owned the property and sought legal actions to overturn the EPA decision. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the couple ("Sackett"). The Clean Water Act is so ambiguous on what type of water the EPA has authority to protect. No action has been done to help clarify the law resulting in an outdated
Many events that led up to the creation of the Clean Water Act, one example is the 1960s was the peak of the environmental problems throughout the country water pollution was at all-time high. The effects of polluted waters on public health become a hot topic, citizens demanded the government do something about it (Clark). This lead to the creation of the environmental protection agency by President Nixon …show more content…
Prior to this time, nobody blinked twice about polluting the environment. The Act was a controversial topic because it was the first time in 200 years, regulations for polluting the water were put into action. The water pollution is such a broad topic that the Clean Water Act broken it into five categories: research and related programs, grants for construction and treatment of works, standards and enforcement, permits and licenses, general provisions. Each category has various sub-topics that can be broken down further into sections. The loopholes are often found in these segments because the word choice is so vague. Richard Schwartz, a veteran environmental attorney at Crowell & Moring points out "The act doesn't tell you very much," he said. "It refers to navigable waters and defines them as waters of the United States. But there are so many possible variations of facts, and the Clean Water Act says so little that there is just so much room for …show more content…
Property laws state if it’s a privately own property the owner can do anything the please and the government cannot interfere. Even the Supreme Court couldn’t do anything about it. In the case of Sackett v. EPA (2011) examined a citizen right to question the EPA's authority. When a couple wanted to build a home near a wetland. The EPA told them couldn’t build the house because they were too close to the wetland, and building a home would disrupt the local ecosystem. The couple owned the property and sought legal actions to overturn the EPA decision. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the couple ("Sackett"). The Clean Water Act is so ambiguous on what type of water the EPA has authority to protect. No action has been done to help clarify the law resulting in an outdated