Search

In the United States, environmental federalism largely relies on a system for policy implementation that allows the federal government to delegate primary program authority (or primacy) to state agencies. Although it is an ingrained feature of several major federal environmental policies, such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), there is little evidence to indicate what impact delegating authorities has on programs. In order to examine this, the authors use a synthetic control technique to determine how actual CWA program outcomes in five states compare to expected outcomes if EPA retained primary authority. Findings indicate that while there were no significant differences in Texas and Oklahoma, state primacy led to improved program outcomes in Florida, but worse outcomes in Maine and South Dakota. Conclusions suggest that primacy has asymmetrical impacts that largely depend on state implementation systems, which carries important implications for environmental federalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Clean Water Act is the foundational water law in the United States. It seeks to protect the nation's waters through establishing programs that limit pollutant discharge into surface waters. Water quality standards serve an essential role in protecting the surface waters of the United States because they set effluent limitations necessary to reduce pollutant discharge and to maintain the designated uses of the surface waters. Although all states have water quality standards for surface waters that run through their respective boundaries, most tribes lack water quality standards that are applicable for establishing effluent limitations under the Clean Water Act. With over 500 federally recognized tribes in the United States, the lack of water quality standards for surface waters that run through many of these tribes' lands undermines surface water protection. This Comment proposes a solution to this regulatory gap in the Clean Water Act. It suggests the Environmental Protection Agency ought to promulgate a new rule making tribal water quality standards applicable for Clean Water Act programs even though they may not have been approved by the Agency. This Comment begins with a historical background of tribal authority over water quality and a discussion of the current status of water quality standards implementation on Indian reservations. By exploring the reasons for and the consequences of the lack of applicable water quality standards on Indian reservations, this Comment then explains how its proposal will alleviate the problems associated with protecting water quality on Indian reservations and ensure that tribal rights to waters are secured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs on the liability for environmental harms from offshore gas and oil drilling in the light of deepwater horizon oil spill in the U.S. Topics discussed include justifications of strict liability as an appropriate regime to cope up with such undesired risks, addressing judgment proof problems to avoid oil price crises further increasing more judgment proof companies and tools for addressing judgment proof problem such as vicarious liability and compulsory liability insurance.

The article focuses on the need of developing the new approach to water conservation based on the command-and-control pollution laws of the 1970s in California. It mentions that California should adopt a technology-based approach similar to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) to set new standards for water permits. It also mentions that riparian water rights with the natural flow doctrine for the adequate water supply.

The article offers information on the statutory and regulatory model of the ability to pay implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to impose civil penalties against environmental damages and violators of environmental laws and regulations. It informs that the U.S. Congress has included the ability to pay model with the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA).

The article offers information on the Clean Water Rule published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clarify water that are subject to federal regulatory protection by the U.S. Clean Water Act. It cites articles by Laurie Alexander and Robert Adler on scientific evidence and legal history that led to the rule.

The article discusses the U.S Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in case El Dorado Chemical Co. v. U.S Environmental Protection Agency that addressed the U.S Clean Water Act. The Eighth Circuit examined the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deny the proposal of El Dorado Chemical Corp. (EDCC) related to changes to water quality criteria in Arkansas. It also discusses a petition brought by EDCC to re-open its case.