Congress has several attempts to regulate non-point source pollution. However, they are all viewed as a failure. From my point of view, it is a product of their largely non-regulatory approach and is due to a lack of technical information concerning what control measures actually work.
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act “requires states to develop area-wide waste treatment management plans” and be submitted to EPA in return of federal financial assistance. It is considered ineffective because states lacked of incentives to link planning to implementation and is due to “the basic resistance of local governments to federal efforts to dictate planning structures and results”. As a result, federal funding for section 208 was discontinued in 1981. …show more content…
Tracing to the root of these federal programs, states are given relatively large flexibility in adopting their implementation plans. On the one hand, states are unwilling to adopt the implementation plans because regulating non-point source would have negative impact on industries such as agriculture and mining. On the other hand, states have limited information about the “best management practices to control significant sources of non-point source”. Under the non-regulatory approach, states even cannot receive the expected grant that could help them control non-point sources. Facing these three obstacles, it is reasonable for states not to comply to the federal programs that regulate non-point …show more content…
The new programs involve the collaboration of the federal government, state governments, local governments, and the private sector. The watershed plan proposed to involve these groups in preparing unified watershed assessments and restoration action strategies that will be eligible for special federal funding. This plan directly solves the problem of a lack of federal grant, and indirectly unties the obstacle of limited technological information since all levels of government can consult the private sector and non-governmental organizations about technological issues. Furthermore, the Clean Water Action Plan’s watershed approach helps facilitate emission trading between point and non-point sources of water pollution. Emission trading programs can further provide incentives for companies to innovate new technologies and save states’ administrative costs when companies reduce their pollution emission. Although there are still legal and practical obstacles proposed by the EPA that need to be solved, the effluence trading programs show that water quality is improved effectively. Therefore, the watershed approach identifies the problems of a lack of resources and technological information and achieves a more successful result than the non-regulatory
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act “requires states to develop area-wide waste treatment management plans” and be submitted to EPA in return of federal financial assistance. It is considered ineffective because states lacked of incentives to link planning to implementation and is due to “the basic resistance of local governments to federal efforts to dictate planning structures and results”. As a result, federal funding for section 208 was discontinued in 1981. …show more content…
Tracing to the root of these federal programs, states are given relatively large flexibility in adopting their implementation plans. On the one hand, states are unwilling to adopt the implementation plans because regulating non-point source would have negative impact on industries such as agriculture and mining. On the other hand, states have limited information about the “best management practices to control significant sources of non-point source”. Under the non-regulatory approach, states even cannot receive the expected grant that could help them control non-point sources. Facing these three obstacles, it is reasonable for states not to comply to the federal programs that regulate non-point …show more content…
The new programs involve the collaboration of the federal government, state governments, local governments, and the private sector. The watershed plan proposed to involve these groups in preparing unified watershed assessments and restoration action strategies that will be eligible for special federal funding. This plan directly solves the problem of a lack of federal grant, and indirectly unties the obstacle of limited technological information since all levels of government can consult the private sector and non-governmental organizations about technological issues. Furthermore, the Clean Water Action Plan’s watershed approach helps facilitate emission trading between point and non-point sources of water pollution. Emission trading programs can further provide incentives for companies to innovate new technologies and save states’ administrative costs when companies reduce their pollution emission. Although there are still legal and practical obstacles proposed by the EPA that need to be solved, the effluence trading programs show that water quality is improved effectively. Therefore, the watershed approach identifies the problems of a lack of resources and technological information and achieves a more successful result than the non-regulatory