Federal and state environmental relations

Last updated

There are benefits to leaving environmental regulation both to the federal government to the states.For example, wildlife conservation is much more of a concern for Alaska than for New York. New York, however, has much bigger air and light pollution issues than Alaska.

Contents

Because of all of these factors, it almost never ends up being an either/or situation in terms of environmental regulation. One of the few areas that is under complete federal control is the storage and disposal of commercial-level nuclear waste, most likely because the consequences of not properly dealing with it are more dire than for most environmental concerns. States have greater regulatory freedom for areas like air and water pollution, presumably because they are not considered to be as high-stakes as nuclear waste. [1]

Major environmental legislation affecting federal and state relationships

Federal air regulationFederal water regulationFederal solid waste regulationOther federal environmental regulation
Clean Air Act (CAA) Clean Water Act (CWA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Endangered Species Act

Formation of policy

Prior to the late 1970s, nearly all environmental policy was at the state and local level. [2] Federal environmental regulation addressed the federal government itself, rather than states, consumers, or industry. [2] This all changed with a flurry of environmental legislation in the early 1970s. Currently, most federal environmental laws grant both expansive regulatory authority to federal agencies, as well as authorize states to implement plans outlined in federal laws. This model is often called "cooperative federalism". [3]

States shaping federal policy

Relationships between state and federal parties often shape environmental laws and policy. States can directly shape federal policy in the way states choose to enforce, or not enforce, environmental regulation. Federal regulation of nonpoint source water pollution is often cited as weak, in part because localities often lack the incentive to enforce federal regulations, and federal enforcers do not have the authority to countermand state decisions. [4] In areas where the federal government cannot directly intervene, state and local governments have a very strong hand in shaping the practical effect of federal regulation.

States often serve as testing grounds for policies which may be adopted as federal law or policy later. This idea, often called "laboratories of democracy", was articulated by Louis Brandeis in dissent to a 1932 supreme court ruling. [5] If states are left a free hand to try different forms of regulation, the relative merits of each approach will be easier to identify. States often adopt successful regulations from other states as well. [6] One example is treatment of electronic waste. Currently, 18 states and New York City have enacted laws requiring the recycling of electronics at the end of their useful lives., [7] whereas the Federal programs do not treat electronic waste different from other solid waste. Some states have adopted legislation similar to existing legislation in other states, and Congress has recently considered several bills to regulate e-waste, perhaps as a result of pioneering state regulation.

States have also used litigation to force federal regulation. A "deluge" of litigation has forced federal agencies, and the EPA in particular, to adopt more aggressive policies. [8] Nowhere is this trend more clear than with greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of federal climate change regulation, states have brought public nuisance suits against carbon emitters and the EPA. In Massachusetts v. EPA, a group of states succeeded in compelling EPA to promulgate rules to regulate CO2 emissions under the clean air act [9] States have spurred federal action by bringing suit against emitters directly, such as when California sued General Motors [10] and a number of states sued power companies, both over carbon emissions. [11]

Federal policy shaping state policy

Federal regulation often acts as a signal to states. States may perceive this signal to mean more stringent regulation is necessary. [12] Alternately, states may understand federal regulation to be a maximum standard or states may believe federal legislation crowds out state action. In some cases, states have reacted to federal environmental policy by enacting legislation to limit state agencies from enforcing standards more stringent than federal standards. [13] [14] States may also adopt radically different policies as a result of perceived weakness in federal legislation. [15]

Lastly, limits on state and federal power have often shaped environmental regulation. Federal law may preempt state legislation in issues of interstate commerce or navigable waters. Federalism doctrine limits federal power as well. For example, federal policy regarding non-point water pollution is typically subsidies to states with plans to regulate these emissions, in part because of the serious question as to whether the federal government can regulate interstate land use, as it applies to pollution.

Federalism

Overview

Since environmental issues are so complex, it is often lawmakers' opinion that the regulations covering these issues should be broad, all-encompassing and adjustable as new information is made available. Environmental issues are often regional or nationwide and this is reflected in regulation. Some problems are addressed at the federal level or the state level, while others are regulated by both.

Under the 10th amendment, any area over which the federal government does not have authority is under state authority. Federal regulation preempts state and local legislation under the supremacy clause when the two conflict, and under the Dormant Commerce Clause when federal legislation is silent and states seek local protectionism. In many situations of environmental regulations, state and federal governments have Concurrent powers, where each government is permitted to have its own regulation.

When the federal government would like state governments to take certain actions, the federal government may use conditional spending provisions, offering money if states take the desired actions. While some link must exist between the federal money and the desired action, the links may be tenuous. The federal government may not coerce state action or commandeer state resources to take certain actions. However, when the federal government has authority to take the desired actions directly, it may use conditional preemption. Conditional preemption is where the federal government allows states to take the desired actions, and if states do not satisfy federal demands, the federal government steps in and takes over enforcement. Both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act contain conditional spending provisions.

Examples

  • With the Coastal Zone Management Act, the federal government sought to encourage states to develop a plan for managing coastal zones. The act is voluntary and the federal government assists with the creation of plans and with finances. State management plans have authority and any federal actions in the states is limited to state plans. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act is another example of inducement. The federal government wanted states and tribes to have a plan in the event of a chemical disaster. They offered funding for states and tribes to create such a plan, as well as offered technical expertise and information.
  • The Endangered Species Program is one example of concurrent powers. The federal program maintains a list of endangered or threatened animals that must be protected. States, such as Florida, may have their own plans designating animals as threatened or endangered. Federal law serves as a floor, establishing the minimum a state may do to protect species on these lists, and the minimum number of animals on these lists.
  • The Clean Air Act provides an example of conditional preemption. States regulators make the permitting decisions with regard to new sources of pollution. The EPA, however, may countermand state permitting decisions under some circumstances. [16]

Enforcement

Federal involvement

Many environmental laws establish federal standards as the minimum criteria needed to be met in order to ensure state compliance. These include the SDWA, RCRA, CAA, and CWA. The notion is that as long as states meet the federal standards, the EPA will not step in. However, there are fundamental differences regarding how this is enforced.

State notification and assistance are used by the EPA to encourage state and local governments to initiate environmental action.
  • In the CAA, the EPA must issue a notice to the state government, informing the state that there is an instance of non-compliance that must be corrected. If the state does not take corrective measures by the declared deadline in the notice, the EPA can assume all enforcement authority previously given to the state regarding the CAA. The deadline cannot be any later than 1 year from the date the notice was issued. [17]
  • FIFRA gives the EPA strict authority on designating which chemicals must be registered and therefore regulated. Much like the CAA, states in non-compliance are given a notification; however, in this case it is a 90-day notice. [18]
  • The SWDA requires the EPA to maintain an up-to-date list of states that are potentially non-compliant with the federal standards. If continued infractions warrant federal intervention, the EPA must provide technical assistance, advice, and a 60-day notification to the state, so the state has a chance for remedial action. [19]
In some cases the EPA has the authority to issue permits to polluters.
  • The CWA gives the EPA such authority. However, this issuing right can be given to states that meet federal standards. Unlike the CAA and the FIFRA, the Federal government retains enforcement authority even if issuing rights are delineated and no EPA notification of intervention is required. [20]
The EPA can implement environmental compliance with command and control policy instruments.
  • When a pollutant presents an imminent danger to the populace under RCRA and SWDA, the EPA can take complete control of state enforcement authority without any notice. [21]
  • Under RCRA, the EPA can not only obtain all state enforcement authority for solid waste control, but they can also force the state to create its own entity to control and monitor solid waste pollution. Although notification to the state by the EPA is required by law, the timeline of the notification is not strictly defined, allowing the EPA to interpret what is considered a "timely manner for notification". Furthermore, the EPA has created "guidelines", called the Enforcement Response Policy, that establish specific techniques to solve pollution problems and sources of pollution that should be dealt with. Although states are not legally required to abide by these "guidelines", the EPA uses them as a measurement of compliance. Therefore, states must adhere to these "guidelines" in order to prevent federal intervention; however, these guidelines are very specific in some cases such that states with limited resources cannot properly address other sources or use more efficient techniques that are not covered in the "guidelines". [22]
  • CERCLA grants the EPA the authority to put contaminated Superfund sites on the National Priorities List. This list designates sites that must be cleaned up to protect public health. The EPA has the option to lead the cleanup themselves and require state involvement or give funds to a state, who would then lead the cleanup measures. However, before the EPA can provided any funding to a state, the state must guarantee that it will meet certain EPA requirements in the cleanup effort. [23]

State reliance

When the EPA is not responsible for funding or lacks funds, state and local governments are given more enforcement authority by default.
  • The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act grants federal authority to state and local governments in order to gather information about potentially hazardous chemicals stored within the local communities. Congress did not provide the EPA with much funding for this Act, allowing for state and local initiatives to expand without federal oversight. [22] [24]
Federal powers are limited when states enter agreements with the EPA or act as the EPA's agent.
  • Regulation involving underground storage tanks under RCRA encourage state level enforcement. RCRA does not mandate states to adopt an underground storage tank program of their own if the EPA deems the state capable of enforcing compliance and the state enters into an agreement with the EPA. In these circumstances, the state is acting as an agent of the federal government. Thus, actions administered by the state may preclude any further action by the federal government. [22]

Cooperation

Federal and state governments also coordinate litigation with each other, fostering more effective environmental enforcement. This is especially the case when dealing with multi-state issues and overlapping jurisdictions.
  • Many regional EPA offices and state environmental entities regularly hold conferences together to ensure that important information and details are shared for quicker action. [25]
  • Federal, state, and local entities may even voluntarily join environmental action groups to create better environmental regulations. [26]

Federal and state overlap

  • Overfiling occurs when entities who do not meet either state and federal pollution standards are penalized by the state and then again penalized by the federal government. This creates complications for the entity being punished, as well as the state and federal governments themselves. If overfiling occurs, entities will be less willing to enter agreements with a state, fearing that what the state promises may be superseded by the will of the federal government. Subsequently, the state government may be less cooperative in future dealings with the federal government. An example of this is the case of U.S. v. Power Engineering Co., No. 01-1217 (Sept. 4, 2002) under RCRA. [27]
  • In some cases, states will file their own legislation separate from the federal government for additional environmental regulation This is the case for New Jersey's Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA) to CERCLA. [28] In Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, the Supreme Court found that both the EPA and states have some authority in state permitting decisions, and under certain circumstances, the EPA may countermand state permitting decisions.
  • In an 1824 Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden (22 U.S. 1), control over navigable waterways was held to be included within the commerce clause. This granted the federal government direct regulatory authority over the waterways themselves, and forms the basis of the Clean Water Act and wetlands policy.
  • In 2014, Florida state passed a housing bill that will interfere with federal oversight of waterways and wetlands. [29]
  • Economic studies show that whether the federal government uses a price instrument (like a pollution tax to regulate emissions or a feed-in-tariff to support renewable energy) or a quantity instrument (like an emission trading scheme or auctions of renewable energy capacities) fundamentally changes the incentives for state governments to enforce their own regulation on the issue. [30] [31] [32]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Larsen, John. "Bottom Line on State and Federal Policy Roles". World Resources Institute. World Resources Institute, Aug. 2008. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
  2. 1 2 Robert V. Percival, Environmental Federalism: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models, 54 Md. L. Rev. 1141 (1995).
  3. ↑ New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 167 (1992)
  4. ↑ Mandelker, Daniel R. (1989). "Controlling Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Can It Be Done?". Chicago-Kent Law Review. 65: 479–502.
  5. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).
  6. ↑ Wallace E. Oates, A Reconsideration of Environmental Federalism, Recent Advances in Environmental Economics 15 (2002).
  7. ↑ EPA: Statistics on the Management of Used and End-of-Life Electronics, available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm
  8. ↑ Environmental Law Institute, The Environmental Federalism Debate Heats Up, Environmental Forum 20 (November/December 2003): 51.
  9. ↑ Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). States have also attempted to compel EPA to control greenhouse gases at power plants and boilers, see New York v. EPA, No. 06-1131 (2006)(rendered moot by Mass v. EPA).
  10. ↑ California v. General Motors, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68547, 2007 WL 2726871 (N.D. Cal. 2007)(California sued the six major car manufacturers on a public nuisance theory, later dismissed the case when Department of Transportation and White house promulgated stricter fuel economy standards, GM & Chrysler filed chapter 11, and EPA agreed to regulate carbon emissions)
  11. ↑ Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309 (2009)(the 2nd circuit court of appeals held the case was not precluded as a political issue, the supreme court has granted certiorari)
  12. ↑ McCubbins, Mathew D.; Noll, Roger G.; Weingast, Barry R. (1994). "Legislative Intent: The Use of Positive Political Theory in Statutory Interpretation". Law & Contemp. Probs. 57 (1): 3, 25. doi:10.2307/1191982. JSTOR   1191982.
  13. ↑ Adler, Jonathan H. "When is Two a Crowd? The Impact of Federal Action on State Environmental Regulation". Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 31: 67, 83.
  14. ↑ Organ, Jerome M. (1995). "Limitations on State Agency Authority to Adopt Environmental Standards More Stringent than Federal Standards: Policy Considerations and Interpretive Problems". Md. L. Rev. 54: 1373, 1376–86.
  15. ↑ Williams III, Roberton C. (December 2012). "Growing State-Federal Conflicts in Environmental Policy: The Role of Market-Based Regulation" (PDF). Journal of Public Economics . 96 (11–12): 1092–1099. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.08.003. S2CID   153960008.
  16. ↑ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA 540 U.S. 461 (2004).
  17. ↑ W. Reitze Jr., Arnold (2001). Air Pollution Control Law: Compliance & Enforcement. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. pp. 526–528. ISBN   1-58576-027-7.
  18. ↑ "FIFRA Inspection Manual" (PDF). US EPA. 2002. pp. Chapter 4.
  19. ↑ "Guide to Clean Water Act Citizen Suits" (PDF). OHIO Environmental Council. 2004. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2011-05-02.
  20. ↑ Copeland, Claudia (April 23, 2010). "Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
  21. ↑ "Drinking Water Cleanup". US EPA.
  22. 1 2 3 Paddock, LeRoy C. (1990). "The Federal and State Roles in Environmental Enforcement: A Proposal for a More Effective and More Efficient Relationship". Pace Law Faculty Publications.
  23. ↑ "State and Local Involvement in the Superfund Program" (PDF). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Hazardous Site Control Division.
  24. ↑ Gerrard, Michael (2008). Law of Environmental Justice. Chicago, Illinois: ABA Publishing. pp. 271–273. ISBN   9781604420838.
  25. ↑ "Guidelines for Joint State/Federal Civil Environmental Enforcement Litigation" (PDF). National Association of Attorneys General & Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Division. March 2003.
  26. ↑ "WRAP Homepage". Western Regional Air Partnership. Western Governors' Association. 2010.
  27. ↑ "Power Engineering Company - Favorable EPA RCRA Case Decision". Civil Enforcement. US EPA. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
  28. ↑ Witkin, James B. (2004). Environmental Aspects of Real Estate and Commercial Transactions: From Brownfields to Green Buildings. Chicago, Illinois: American Bar Association. p. 29. ISBN   1-59031-287-2.
  29. ↑ "Florida House bill threatens state waterways". The Independent FL Alligator. Retrieved 22 September 2014.
  30. ↑ Williams, Roberton C. (2012-12-01). "Growing state–federal conflicts in environmental policy: The role of market-based regulation". Journal of Public Economics. 96 (11–12): 1092–1099. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.08.003. ISSN   0047-2727.
  31. ↑ Meya, Jasper N.; Neetzow, Paul (2021-09-01). "Renewable energy policies in federal government systems". Energy Economics. 101: 105459. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105459 . ISSN   0140-9883.
  32. ↑ Ambec, Stefan; Coria, Jessica (2018-01-01). "Policy spillovers in the regulation of multiple pollutants". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 87: 114–134. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2017.05.011 . ISSN   0095-0696.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental law</span> Branch of law concerning the natural environment

Environmental laws are laws that protect the environment. Environmental law is the collection of laws, regulations, agreements and common law that governs how humans interact with their environment. This includes environmental regulations; laws governing management of natural resources, such as forests, minerals, or fisheries; and related topics such as environmental impact assessments.Environmental law is seen as the body of laws concerned with the protection of living things from the harm that human activity may immediately or eventually cause to them or their species, either directly or to the media and the habits on which they depend.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Environmental Protection Agency</span> U.S. federal government agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States government tasked with environmental protection matters. President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970; it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial waste</span> Waste produced by industrial activity or manufacturing processes

Industrial waste is the waste produced by industrial activity which includes any material that is rendered useless during a manufacturing process such as that of factories, mills, and mining operations. Types of industrial waste include dirt and gravel, masonry and concrete, scrap metal, oil, solvents, chemicals, scrap lumber, even vegetable matter from restaurants. Industrial waste may be solid, semi-solid or liquid in form. It may be hazardous waste or non-hazardous waste. Industrial waste may pollute the nearby soil or adjacent water bodies, and can contaminate groundwater, lakes, streams, rivers or coastal waters. Industrial waste is often mixed into municipal waste, making accurate assessments difficult. An estimate for the US goes as high as 7.6 billion tons of industrial waste produced annually, as of 2017. Most countries have enacted legislation to deal with the problem of industrial waste, but strictness and compliance regimes vary. Enforcement is always an issue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Resource Conservation and Recovery Act</span>

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States environmental law</span> US environmental policy

United States environmental law concerns legal standards to protect human health and improve the natural environment of the United States. While subject to criticism at home and abroad on issues of protection, enforcement, and over-regulation, the country remains an important source of environmental legal expertise and experience.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

Title 40 is a part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40 arranges mainly environmental regulations that were promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), based on the provisions of United States laws. Parts of the regulation may be updated annually on July 1.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cruise ship pollution in the United States</span> Pollution of cruise ships in the United States

Cruise ships carrying several thousand passengers and crew have been compared to “floating cities,” and the volume of wastes that they produce is comparably large, consisting of sewage; wastewater from sinks, showers, and galleys (graywater); hazardous wastes; solid waste; oily bilge water; ballast water; and air pollution. The waste streams generated by cruise ships are governed by a number of international protocols and U.S. domestic laws, regulations, and standards, but there is no single law or rule. Some cruise ship waste streams appear to be well regulated, such as solid wastes and bilge water. But there is overlap of some areas, and there are gaps in others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of ship pollution in the United States</span>

In the United States, several federal agencies and laws have some jurisdiction over pollution from ships in U.S. waters. States and local government agencies also have responsibilities for ship-related pollution in some situations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental policy of the United States</span> Governmental action to protect the environment

The environmental policy of the United States is a federal governmental action to regulate activities that have an environmental impact in the United States. The goal of environmental policy is to protect the environment for future generations while interfering as little as possible with the efficiency of commerce or the liberty of the people and to limit inequity in who is burdened with environmental costs. As his first official act bringing in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon signed the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law on New Years Day, 1970. Also in the same year, America began celebrating Earth Day, which has been called "the big bang of U.S. environmental politics, launching the country on a sweeping social learning curve about ecological management never before experienced or attempted in any other nation." NEPA established a comprehensive US national environmental policy and created the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement for “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.” Author and consultant Charles H. Eccleston has called NEPA, the world's “environmental Magna Carta”.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Air Act (United States)</span> 1963 United States federal law to control air pollution

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the United States' primary federal air quality law, intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide. Initially enacted in 1963 and amended many times since, it is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws.

To protect the environment from the adverse effects of pollution, many nations worldwide have enacted legislation to regulate various types of pollution as well as to mitigate the adverse effects of pollution. At the local level, regulation usually is supervised by environmental agencies or the broader public health system. Different jurisdictions often have different levels regulation and policy choices about pollution. Historically, polluters will lobby governments in less economically developed areas or countries to maintain lax regulation in order to protect industrialisation at the cost of human and environmental health.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance</span> Law enforcement arm of the United States Environmental Protection Agency

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is the law enforcement arm of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is made up of attorneys, special agents, scientists and other employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Waste management law</span>

Waste management laws govern the transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of all manner of waste, including municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, and nuclear waste, among many other types. Waste laws are generally designed to minimize or eliminate the uncontrolled dispersal of waste materials into the environment in a manner that may cause ecological or biological harm, and include laws designed to reduce the generation of waste and promote or mandate waste recycling. Regulatory efforts include identifying and categorizing waste types and mandating transport, treatment, storage, and disposal practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Guam Environmental Protection Agency</span>

The Guam Environmental Protection Agency is a government agency of the United States territory of Guam.

Solid waste policy in the United States is aimed at developing and implementing proper mechanisms to effectively manage solid waste. For solid waste policy to be effective, inputs should come from stakeholders, including citizens, businesses, community-based organizations, non-governmental organizations, government agencies, universities, and other research organizations. These inputs form the basis of policy frameworks that influence solid waste management decisions. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates household, industrial, manufacturing, and commercial solid and hazardous wastes under the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Effective solid waste management is a cooperative effort involving federal, state, regional, and local entities. Thus, the RCRA's Solid Waste program section D encourages the environmental departments of each state to develop comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous industrial and municipal solid waste.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States regulation of point source water pollution</span> Overview of the regulation of point source water pollution in the United States of America

Point source water pollution comes from discrete conveyances and alters the chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of water. In the United States, it is largely regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). Among other things, the Act requires dischargers to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to legally discharge pollutants into a water body. However, point source pollution remains an issue in some water bodies, due to some limitations of the Act. Consequently, other regulatory approaches have emerged, such as water quality trading and voluntary community-level efforts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exemptions for fracking under United States federal law</span>

There are many exemptions for fracking under United States federal law: the oil and gas industries are exempt or excluded from certain sections of a number of the major federal environmental laws. These laws range from protecting clean water and air, to preventing the release of toxic substances and chemicals into the environment: the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental cleanup law</span>

Environmental cleanup laws govern the removal of pollution or contaminants from environmental media such as soil, sediment, surface water, or ground water. Unlike pollution control laws, cleanup laws are designed to respond after-the-fact to environmental contamination, and consequently must often define not only the necessary response actions, but also the parties who may be responsible for undertaking such actions. Regulatory requirements may include rules for emergency response, liability allocation, site assessment, remedial investigation, feasibility studies, remedial action, post-remedial monitoring, and site reuse.

Water in Arkansas is an important issue encompassing the conservation, protection, management, distribution and use of the water resource in the state. Arkansas contains a mixture of groundwater and surface water, with a variety of state and federal agencies responsible for the regulation of the water resource. In accordance with agency rules, state, and federal law, the state's water treatment facilities utilize engineering, chemistry, science and technology to treat raw water from the environment to potable water standards and distribute it through water mains to homes, farms, business and industrial customers. Following use, wastewater is collected in collection and conveyance systems, decentralized sewer systems or septic tanks and treated in accordance with regulations at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) before being discharged to the environment.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.