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.
When Congress passed the
Clean Water Act in 1972, there was a visible water crisis that made a compelling
case for action. 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 reveal a continuing water pollution crisis in this
country. Approximately 40% of our waters are still not safe for swimming or
fishing; there have been over 36,000 beach closings and advisories since 1988;
and in 1999, 48 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, and is explored in 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. Even despite creating
a high threshold of permit noncompliance, over 26% of major facilities examined
(1,730) were in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) with their Clean Water Act permits
for at least one quarter during the 15 months beginning October 1, 1998 and
ending December 31, 1999.
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, Alabama,
Tennessee, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, and Indiana.
· The top ten states with
the highest percentage of major facilities in SNC were Utah, Tennessee, Ohio,
Vermont, Missouri, Oklahoma, Alabama, Rhode Island, Nebraska, and Indiana.
· 159 major facilities were
in Significant Noncompliance during the entire 15 month period.
· Of the 42 industrial facilities
in Significant Noncompliance for the entire 15 month period, over the past five
years only one has received a fine.
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 1,700 large facilities
stems from several specific policy failures. At the most basic level, the government,
including both state agencies and the U.S. EPA, have 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.
Both President Bush and
EPA Administrator Whitman have questionable records on enforcement as Governors.
And the new administration has already signaled its attack on enforcement of
our nation’s environmental laws by proposing a federal budget with massive cuts
for enforcement activity at EPA headquarters and around the country. Part of
their rationale is that states are better suited to carry out enforcement activities.
But as the 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, U.S. PIRG recommends the following:
1) Penalties should be set
that both prevent polluters from profiting by breaking the law and deter lawbreaking
in the first place. This approach has proved successful in New Jersey, which
passed a tough Clean Water Enforcement Act in 1990 that helped to reduce the
state’s ranking among states in terms of percentage of facilities in Significant
Noncompliance to 46th.
2) The obstacles citizens
face in the courts should be removed, including allowing citizens to be able
to sue for past violations and removing 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, and thus whistleblower protections must be strengthened to extend
the statue of limitations for protection to employees.
|
