Search

The artile discusses the U.S. Congressional Research Service report which provides an overview of Clean Water Act (CWA )Section 40. It mentions Section 401 of the CWA requires that any applicant for a federal license provide a certification that any discharges that may result from the licensed activity will comply with the act, including water quality standard requirements, and the take of Environmental Protection Agency on same.

The article focuses on the U.S. government role in the risk associated with Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with exposures above certain levels are associated with various adverse health effects. It mentions actions have been taken primarily under the authorities of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Clean Water Act (CWA); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

The article presents an overview and developments under Section 401 of Clean Water Act (CWA) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters. It mentions certification, issued by certifying authority and the state in which discharge originates, but sometimes a tribe or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It also mentions federal licenses or permits include hydropower projects licensed by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The article discusses the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure provisions in the U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Topics include emergency supplemental appropriations to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs; the role of Environmental Protection Agency in looking into drinking water provisions; and the role of Clean Water Act in addressing the same.

This report examines the actions taken by the administrations of U.S. Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joseph Biden to define waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), along with related legislation and case law. Topics discussed include history of WOTUS regulations, jurisdictional categories and implementation challenges, and potential impacts of revised WOTUS definitions.

The article focuses on the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 for applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters. It mentions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attests that the discharge will comply with applicable provisions of sections of the CWA. It also mentions activities require federal licenses or permits include hydropower projects licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The article focuses on the frequency and geographic distribution of harmful algal blooms (HABs) have been increasing nationally and globally. It mentions cyanotoxins associated with these HABs can also kill pets, farm animals, and wildlife, and contaminate or kill fish and HABs can also contribute to deteriorating water quality and ecosystem health. It also mentions Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address water quality concerns associated with HABs.

The article reports that administration of US president Donald Trump has introduced a proposed rule for redefining jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Army Corps of Engineers introduced new regulations in the year 2015 concerning the above mentioned Act.

The article discusses the budget requests and appropriations for the water infrastructure assistance programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1973. Topics discussed include the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act that provides funding to help compliance to sewage treatment and drinking water regulations, respectively; the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program; and tables showing the budgets for the said programs from 1973-2019.

The article discusses the integrated planning policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Topics discussed include brief background information on the planning policy promoted by EPA which seeks to improve wastewater infrastructure in municipalities to be able to comply with the Clean Water Act, and mentions the initiatives of EPA to help communities in sewage management such as integrating approaches in sewage facility management and collaborative works with the community.

On May 27, 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revising regulations that define the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges to waters under CWA jurisdiction, such as the addition of pollutants from factories or sewage treatment plants and the dredging and filling of spoil material through mining or excavation, require a CWA permit. The rule was proposed in 2014 in light of Supreme Court rulings that created uncertainty about the geographic limits of waters that are and are not protected by the CWA. According to EPA and the Corps, their intent in proposing the rule was to clarify CWA jurisdiction, not expand it. Nevertheless, the rule has been extremely controversial, especially with groups representing property owners, land developers, and agriculture, who contend that it represents a massive federal overreach beyond the agencies' statutory authority. Most state and local officials are supportive of clarifying the extent of CWA-regulated waters, but some are concerned that the rule could impose costs on states and localities as their own actions become subject to new requirements. Most environmental advocacy groups welcomed the proposal, which would more clearly define U.S. waters that are subject to CWA protections, but beyond that general support, some in these groups favor an even stronger rule. The final rule contains a number of changes to respond to criticisms of the proposal, but the revisions may not satisfy all critics of the rule. The rule became effective August 28, 2015, replacing EPA-Corps guidance that has governed permitting decisions since the Supreme Court's rulings. However, a federal appeals court issued a nationwide stay of the rule that has been in effect since October 2015. Despite the court's stay of the rule, some in Congress favor halting EPA and the Corps' current approach to defining "waters of the United States." To do so legislatively, at least four options were reflected in bills in the 114th Congress. • The Congressional Review Act. If Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving a covered rule under procedures provided by the act, and the resolution becomes law, the rule cannot take effect or continue in effect. The agency may not reissue either that rule or any substantially similar one, except under authority of a subsequently enacted law. The Senate and House passed such a joint resolution (S.J.Res. 22), but President Obama vetoed it on January 19. On January 21, a procedural vote in the Senate to override the veto failed. • Appropriations bill limitations. A provision in an appropriations bill can be a mechanism to block or redirect an agency's course of action by limiting or preventing agency funds from being used for the rule. Bills with such limitations were reported in 2015 and 2016, but none of these bills were enacted. • Standalone targeted legislation. Other legislation can take several forms, such as a bill similar to limits in an appropriations bill to prohibit EPA and the Corps from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule. Another approach could be legislation to address substantive aspects of the rule that have been criticized. The House passed one such bill (H.R. 1732) in 2015. Similar legislation was reported in the Senate, but failed to advance (S. 1140). • Broad amendments to the Clean Water Act. Legislation to affirm or clarify Congress's intention regarding CWA jurisdiction would have broad implications for the CWA, since questions of jurisdiction are fundamental to all of the act's regulatory requirements. These options and related legislative activity in the 114th Congress are discussed in this report. Each option faced a steep path to enactment, because of the Obama Administration's opposition to legislation to halt or weaken a major regulatory initiative such as the "waters of the United States" rule. With a change in administration in January 2017, the 115th Congress and the new administration seem likely to revisit the "waters of the United States" issue and controversies, but how that will occur is unclear for now. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the definition of the terms navigable waters under the Clean Water Act law for water pollution control in the U.S. The focus of the final rule retained for the structure of the definition of the phrase waters of the U.S. on clarifying the regulatory status of surface waters located in isolated places is explored.

The article presents the 2016 U.S. Congressional Research Service study "Evolution of the Meaning of "Waters of the United States" in the Clean Water Act" by Stephen P. Mulligan, which deals with the history of the changes in the definition of the phrase "waters of the U.S." as used in U.S. federal regulations and laws and agency guidance. It discusses the different definitions given to the phrase by various government agencies and the way the term is defined under the Clean Water Act of 1977.

On May 27, 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revising regulations that define the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges to waters under CWA jurisdiction, such as the addition of pollutants from factories or sewage treatment plants and the dredging and filling of spoil material through mining or excavation, require a CWA permit. The rule was proposed in 2014 in light of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 that created uncertainty about the geographic limits of waters that are and are not protected by the CWA. The rule, which becomes effective August 28, 2015, replaces EPA-Corps guidance that has governed permitting decisions since the Court's rulings. According to EPA and the Corps, their intent in proposing the rule was to clarify CWA jurisdiction, not expand it. Nevertheless, the rule has been extremely controversial, especially with groups representing property owners, land developers, and agriculture, who contend that it represents a massive federal overreach beyond the agencies' statutory authority. Most state and local officials are supportive of clarifying the extent of CWA-regulated waters, but some are concerned that the rule could impose costs on states and localities as their own actions become subject to new requirements. Most environmental advocacy groups welcomed the proposal, which would more clearly define U.S. waters that are subject to CWA protections, but beyond that general support, some in these groups favor an even stronger rule. The final rule contains a number of changes to respond to criticisms of the proposal, but the revisions may not satisfy all critics of the rule. Because of controversies over the rule, some in Congress favor halting EPA and the Corps' current approach to defining "waters of the United States." To do so legislatively, at least four options are available and are reflected in bills in the 114th Congress. The Congressional Review Act. If Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving a covered rule under procedures provided by the act, and the resolution becomes law, the rule cannot take effect or continue in effect. The agency may not reissue either that rule or any substantially similar one, except under authority of a subsequently enacted law. The Senate and House have passed such a joint resolution (S.J.Res. 22), but President Obama vetoed it on January 19. Appropriations bill limitations. A provision in an appropriations bill can be a mechanism to block or redirect an agency's course of action by limiting or preventing agency funds from being used for the rule. Bills with such limitations were reported in the Senate and House in 2015, but the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113) contained no such provisions. Standalone targeted legislation. Other legislation can take several forms, such as a bill similar to limits in an appropriations bill to prohibit EPA and the Corps from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule. Another approach could be legislation to address substantive aspects of the rule that have been criticized. The House has passed one such bill (H.R. 1732). Similar legislation was reported in the Senate, but failed to advance (S. 1140). Broad amendments to the Clean Water Act. Legislation to affirm or clarify Congress's intention regarding CWA jurisdiction would have broad implications for the CWA, since questions of jurisdiction are fundamental to all of the act's regulatory requirements. These options and related legislative activity are discussed in this report. Each option faces a steep path to enactment, because President Obama likely would oppose legislation to halt or weaken a major regulatory initiative of the Administration such as the "waters of the United States" rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the developments on the legal challenges of the Clean Water rule which filed in multiple federal courts by the industry groups and environmental groups in the U.S. It examines the interpretation of the government agencies over the Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction. Several tables that show the comparison of the waters in the country, are presented.

The article discusses the release of the peer-reviewed scientific literature about the connectivity of streams and wetlands to the rivers and oceans by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It states that the wetlands and the open water flows to a river network that can benefit downstream water quality and integrity. It also notes that the draft report address legal standards for the Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction.

The article discusses the liability protection of the Good Samaritan legislation in the U.S. It states that the comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and liability act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) is the obstacle to the voluntary cleanup. It mentions that the addition of the CWA and CERCLA could draw opposition to the creation of solutions that would gain support.

The article looks at the criticism and legal issues on mountaintop mining in the U.S. Topics discussed include the lawsuit filed by a West Virginia citizen group against the state government and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on negligence in regulating mountaintop removal, the role of Clean Water Act Section 404 in controlling mountaintop mining activities linked to the fill material rule, and the stream buffer zone rule imposed by the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation in 2008.

The article presents a report concerning mountaintop mining operations in the U.S. and their environmental effects. Topics discussed include the process of mountaintop mining applying elimination of a mountain top to extract coal seams within states covering the Appalachian Mountains like Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio, government measures to regulate mountaintop mining like the Clean Water Act, and criticism by the coal industry on mining permits linked by the laws.

The article discusses the impact of the proposed rule of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as of March 2015. Topics discussed include changing the regulatory definition of waters of the U.S., percentage of wetlands and stream miles that would be subject to CWA jurisdiction as a result of the proposed rule, and the value of the ecosystem services provided by the waters.

The article presents updates on the proposed rule of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as of March 2015. Topics discussed include Congressional interest in the proposed rule, legal challenges, and the proposed withdrawal of the Clean Water Rule.

The article presents a U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the proposed rule of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Topics discussed include regulatory language defining waters of the U.S., definition of the regulatory term other waters, and concerns of agriculture and local governments.

The article discusses the proposed rule of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as of March 2015. Topics discussed include the protection of navigable waters by the CWA, waters that would be jurisdictional by rule or categorically jurisdictional, and the regulatory term other waters applying to wetlands and non-wetland waters.

The article discusses issues relating to the Clean Water Act that have been the subject of oversight and legislation in the 113th U.S. Congress. Topics include the environmental and economic impacts of Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts, federal promulgation of water quality standards in Florida, and regulation of surface coal mining activities in Appalachia. Questions about the cost-effectiveness of some of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's actions have been raised in the Congress.

The article discusses the impact of U.S. Environmetal Protection Agency's assessment policy for environmental compliance to local communities. Topics discussed include the concern of local governments on the cost of environmental compliance for water infrastructure improvements in order to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, and notes the petitions of many local government units to revise the guidelines of EPA that will address the community's ability to pay the facility operations.

The article discusses the role of the U.S. Congress to address the issues in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines in water quality management. Topics discussed include the issues in the funding needs of water infrastructure in small communities that find it difficult to finance the facilities, and highlights the various initiatives to change the guidelines imposed by EPA including legislative proposals and the alterations in Clean Water Act's existing framework.

The article provides information on the history and provisions of the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA). It discusses revisions made to the CWA, which was originally enacted in 1948. According to the article, the law is composed of two major parts, one is provisions which authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant construction and the other is regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and municipal dischargers.

The article discusses the categories of jurisdictional water including interstate waters, territorial seas and tributaries. It highlights the enforcement of limitations on the jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act (CWA) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). It also notes that the proposed rule allow broader aggregation of waters.

The article discusses the proposed revision of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the U.S. It highlights the categories of jurisdictional waters including the traditional navigable waters, the interstate waters, the territorial seas and the tributaries. It also examines the hydrologic connection for downstream water quality with the navigable waters.

The article explains mountaintop mining and its associated regulations. Topics discussed include mountaintop mining is the process of eliminating the top of a mountain to extract coal seams through the use of explosives and earth-moving equipment, laws that regulate the mining method like the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the Clean Water Act, and permit programs like the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the dredge and fill permit program.

The article reports on how the 113th U.S. Congress has addressed clean water policy and program issues in the context of appropriations acts. Topics include the inclusion of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's appropriations in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations acts, the bill drafted that would maintain funding for the clean water state revolving fund (SRF), and the U.S. government's appropriations for 2015 for clean water SRF capitalization grants.

The article focuses on the frequency and geographic distribution of harmful algal blooms (HABs) have been increasing nationally and globally. It mentions cyanotoxins associated with these HABs can also kill pets, farm animals, and wildlife, and contaminate or kill fish and HABs can also contribute to deteriorating water quality and ecosystem health. It also mentions Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address water quality concerns associated with HABs.

The article focuses on production and use of natural gas in the U.S. It highlights Federal statutes that address pollution control measures in natural gas systems including Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Air Act (CAA). It refers to the environmental impact of the recent increase in natural gas production.

The article reports on the interaction between the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program with existing water financing programs in the U.S. Proponents of the program claim that it is designed not to duplicate current water infrastructure financing tools. Opponents of the program, on the other hand, argue that it has potential adverse impacts on funds for the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act SRF programs.

The article discusses the amendments for other clean water acts in the U.S. The introduction of bills to address Clean Water Act law on water pollution control in the Congress in the U.S. from 2001 to 2016 is explored. The introduction of other legislation intended to restrict regulatory jurisdiction is also noted.

The article offers information on oil spill prevention and response regulations. Topics discussed include Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1970, Clean Water Act (CWA), establishment of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), jurisdiction over vessels by Coast Guard and oil spill programs of various states.

The article examines the impact of the implementation of the U.S. Clean Water Act of 1977 on the legal definition and use of the term jurisdictional waters. Topics discussed include the Act resulting in disagreements between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over water permit authority and the division of responsibilities between the EPA and the Corps as defined under the Memorandum of Agreement signed by both agencies in 1989.

The article discusses the congressional hearing of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the finalization of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the U.S. It states that the CWA rule was introduced by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). It also cites the interests of the Congress over the rule to improve environmental protection in the country.

The article discusses the impact of the proposed revision of the Clean Water Act (CWA) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the agricultural operations in the U.S. It examines the exemption of the statutory provisions for normal farming and ranching practices in the country. It also cites several water conservation practices such as stream crossings and wetland restoration.

The article discusses the environmental impact of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to the jurisdictional water in the U.S. It examines the proposed revison of the rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). It also cites the reduction in waters protected by the CWA.

The article discusses the proposed revision of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulation to protect navigable waters in the U.S. It highlights the regulatory requirements of the CWA including permits, water standards, discharge limitations and the enforcement of water laws and regulation. It also cites the liability of the government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on water pollution in the country.

he article presents a U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the proposed rule of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Topics discussed include the extent of CWA-regulated waters and the introduction of legislative proposals banning the EPA and the Corps from implementing the 2011 proposed guidance.

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editor discusses the revision of the regulations by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency on the discharges of pollutants from factories and sewage disposal plants under the Clean Water Act law in the U.S.

A table of contents for the issue is presented.

The article discusses the concerns of the local government over the proposed revision of the Clean Water Act (CWA) including roadside ditches, flood control and stormwater management in the U.S.

The article presents an overview on the proposed revision of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulation for the water in the U.S. It highlights the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to minimize delays and costs for the efficacy of clean water protection for the landowners and regulated entities in the country. It outlines the revise rules including adjacent waters, removal of wetlands and exclusions of water-filled depressions.

The article presents contact information for Claudia Copeland, who contributed to the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the proposed rule of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA).