Clean Water Reports
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
As the new home of NCPIRG's environmental work,
Environment North Carolina can be contacted with any questions regarding this report.
In 1972, a severe water
quality crisis compelled Congress to pass the Clean Water Act. The Cuyahoga
River literally caught on fire in 1969, and a spill off the coast of California
had left millions of gallons of oil along the coastline. The goals of the
Act – clearly stated – were to return all waters to fishable and swimmable
conditions by 1983 and to eliminate the discharge of all pollutants by 1985.
Now nearly 30 years later, although the visible signs of pollution may not
be as evident as a burning river, a careful examination of the facts reveals
a continuing water pollution crisis in this country. Approximately 40% of
our waters are still not safe for swimming or fishing, and in 2001, 49 states
issued fish consumption advisories because of high levels of dangerous chemicals.
In order to uncover why
we have failed to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act, this report analyzes
the performance of federal and state governments with respect to enforcement
of the Clean Water Act. It examines the government’s listing of facilities
that are in “Significant Non-Compliance” with their Clean Water Act permits,
information that can only be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information provides a look at facilities that are in serious and chronic
violation of the law within the larger context of enforcement accountability
and efficacy in deterring pollution.
The findings demonstrate
the continued disregard by polluters for public health, the environment, and
the law. Polluters violate the terms of their Clean Water Act permits on a
far too regular basis. EPA has identified certain types of infractions as
being “significant,” an arbitrarily high measure to anyone living downstream
from a facility discharging any amount of dangerous chemicals. Despite this
high threshold for permit non-compliance, nearly 30% of major facilities
examined (1,798) were in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) with their Clean
Water Act permits for at least one quarter during the 15 months beginning
January 1, 2000 and ending March 31, 2001.
Among the report’s other
major findings:
• The top ten states with
the greatest number of major facilities in SNC were Texas, Ohio, New York,
Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
• The top ten states with
the highest percentage of major facilities in SNC were Utah, Texas, Tennessee,
Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Indiana, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Kansas,
and Ohio.
• 134 major facilities
were in Significant Noncompliance during the entire 15 month period.
The continued dumping
of hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic chemicals into our waterways and
the significant violation of the Clean Water Act by nearly 1,800 large facilities
stems from several specific policy failures. At the most basic level, the
government, including both state agencies and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), has failed to properly pursue and punish polluters. Meanwhile,
the courts have eroded citizens’ ability to file suits in order to enforce
the Clean Water Act. In addition, regulators have failed to progressively
lower permitted amounts of pollution in order to move toward the zero-discharge
goal of the Clean Water Act. One out of every four facilities is operating
on an expired permit.
The new administration
has already signaled its attack on enforcement of our nation’s environmental
laws by proposing a federal budget both last year and this year with massive
cuts for enforcement activity at EPA headquarters and around the country.
Part of its rationale is that states are better suited to carry out enforcement
activities. But as this report details, many states have failed in this task,
thus making the strategy of devolving more power to the states with respect
to enforcement a dubious venture at best.
In order to make progress
toward the basic goals of the Clean Water Act:
1) Penalties should be
set that both prevent polluters from profiting by breaking the law and deter
lawbreaking in the first place.
2) The obstacles citizens
face in the courts should be removed, including allowing citizens to be able
to sue for past violations and eliminating the federal facility exemptions
that currently exist.
3) Facilities that discharge
into ground waters, surface waters, or treatments works facilities must submit
comprehensive data on a regular basis that is easily available to the public,
including online Internet searches.
4) Among the most important
sources of information about what a facility is actually doing is often its
own employees. Whistleblower protections must be strengthened to extend the
statute of limitations for protection to employees.
|
