The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Richard F Ambrose - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a spatial analysis of cumulative habitat loss in southern california under the Clean Water Act section 404 program
Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007Co-Authors: Daniel P Swenson, Richard F AmbroseAbstract:AbstrAct Habitat loss is the leading cause of biodiversity reduction in the world today, with wetlands having experienced especially large losses in the United States and elsewhere. Using remote sensing and GIS techniques, this study quantified cumulative habitat loss in two Southern California Watersheds associated with Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, primarily for developments, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 1984 to 2002. While the majority of habitat loss occurred outside of explicitly 404-authorized developments, non-explicitly authorized development represented a substantial frAction of observed habitat loss. The spatial distribution of habitat loss and 404 permits were analyzed statistically. In almost all cases, percent habitat loss was significantly correlated with variables representing 404 authorizations. These correlations may indicate the presence of incidental authorizations, suggesting that 404 authorizations within the study area may have indirectly facilitated nearby development (i.e., growth-inducing impActs). This study expanded the use of remote sensing, GIS, and spatial statistics for the purpose of regulatory-driven cumulative impAct assessment. Until resource agencies quantify cumulative impActs in a spatially explicit manner and analyze those data statistically, there can be little rigorous scientific basis for formulating regulatory or policy decisions regarding cumulative impActs.
-
the us Clean Water Act and habitat replacement evaluation of mitigation sites in orange county california usa
Environmental Management, 2002Co-Authors: Mark F Sudol, Richard F AmbroseAbstract:Both permit requirements and ecological assessments have been used to evaluate mitigation success. This analysis combines these two approaches to evaluate mitigation required under Section 404 of the United States Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which allow developers to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impActs to wetlands. This study reviewed permit files and conducted field assessments of mitigation sites to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation required by the US Army Corps of Engineers for all permits issued in Orange County, California from 1979 through 1993. The 535 permit Actions approved during this period allowed 157 ha of impActs. Mitigation was required on 70 of these Actions, with 152 ha of enhanced, restored, and created habitat required for 136 ha of impActs. In 15 permit Actions, no mitigation project was constructed, but in only two cases was the originally permitted project built; the two cases resulted in an unmitigated loss of 1.6 ha. Of the remaining 55 sites, 55% were successful at meeting the permit conditions while 11% failed to do so. Based on a qualitative assessment of habitat quality, only 16% of the sites could be considered successful and 26% were considered failures. Thus, of the 126 ha of habitat lost due to the 55 projects, only 26 ha of mitigation was considered successful. The low success rate was not due to poor enforcement, although nearly half of the projects did not comply with all permit conditions. Mitigation success could best be improved by requiring mitigation plans to have performance standards based on habitat functions.
-
cumulative impActs of section 404 Clean Water Act permitting on the riparian habitat of the santa margarita california Watershed
Wetlands, 1998Co-Authors: Eric D. Stein, Richard F AmbroseAbstract:The Santa Margarita River is one of the few remaining free-flowing river systems on the Southern California coastal plain, and it provides one of the most expansive, unspoiled riparian habitats in Southern California. There is concern among resource managers that the cumulative impActs associated with rapid development of the upper Watershed will degrade the ecological integrity of the entire Watershed. In response to this concern, we assessed the impActs of development projects in this Watershed, which were subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Cumulative impActs were assessed by comparing the conditions present at each project site prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit to conditions present after issuance of the permit. Changes between pre- and post-project site conditions were evaluated using a semantic categorization for the following six criteria: endangered species habitat, structural diversity, spatial diversity, undeveloped open space, linear contiguity, and adjacent habitat. The impAct assessment showed that although the Section 404 permit program has attenuated project impActs, it has failed at minimizing cumulative impActs. Projects permitted under Section 404 contributed to the disruption of movement corridors linking the habitats of the upper and lower Watershed and resulted in extensive floodplain encroachment, which may have hydrologic as well as ecological implications. More importantly, this assessment identified the types of Activities and habitat functions that should be addressed during revisions in permitting procedures and should be emphasized in the Watershed planning process. These conclusions will be incorporated into an ongoing Advanced Identification study sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a management plan for the Santa Margarita Watershed.
Claudia Copeland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Clean Water Act a summary of the law
2016Co-Authors: Claudia CopelandAbstract:This report presents a summary of the law, describing the essence of the statute without discussing its implementation. Other CRS products do discuss implementation, including CRS Report RL33800, Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation, and numerous products cited in that report.
-
Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act
2013Co-Authors: Claudia CopelandAbstract:Congress enActed the most recent major amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1987 (P.L. 100-4). Since then, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and others have been working to implement the many program changes and additions mandated in the law. At issue today, as it has been for some time, is what progress EPA and the states are making. In general, many states and environmental groups fault EPA for delays in issuing guidance and assistance needed to carry out the provisions of the law. EPA and others are critical of states, in turn, for not reaching beyond conventional knowledge and institutional approaches to address their Water quality problems. Environmental groups have been criticized for insufficient recognition of EPA's and states' need for flexibility to implement the Act. Finally, Congress has been criticized for not providing adequate funding and resources to meet EPA and state needs.
-
Clean Water Act and Pollutant Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
2012Co-Authors: Claudia CopelandAbstract:This report discusses the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program which regulates pollutants to ensure that Water quality standards can be attained; section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify Waters that are impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. The report focuses on new challenges facing the TMDL program, including more complex TMDLs, larger scale impairments, and nonpoint sources.
-
Clean Water Act section 401 background and issues
2011Co-Authors: Claudia CopelandAbstract:Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will comply with the Act, including Water quality standard requirements. Disputes have arisen over the states' exercise of authority under Section 401. Until recently, much of the debate over the Section 401 certification issue has been between states and hydropower interests. A 1994 Supreme Court decision which upheld the states' authority in this area dismayed development and hydroelectric power interest groups. The Court revisited these issues in a 2006 ruling that unanimously upheld the states' authority to condition hydropower licenses. The dispute between states and industry groups about Section 401 authority has been a legislative issue on several occasions, but Congress has not responded by modifying the provision's scope. In addition, there has been interest in clarifying whether Section 401 certification applies to nonpoint source discharges, such as rainfall runoff, as well as point source discharges from pipes or ditches.
-
Controversies over Redefining “Fill Material” Under the Clean Water Act
2009Co-Authors: Claudia CopelandAbstract:This report discusses the 2002 rule (the Clean Water Act), focusing on how it changes which material and types of Activities are regulated under Section 404 and the significance of these issues, especially for the mining industry.
Robert W. Adler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
atomizing the Clean Water Act ignoring the whole statute and asking the wrong questions
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Robert W. Adler, Brian HouseAbstract:When attempting to resolve difficult issues of statutory construction involving complex statutes, courts sometimes focus on individual words and phrases without evaluating how they fit within the text and structure of the whole statute. We call this “atomization” of the statutory text. Judges have fallen into this trap in construing the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other lengthy, complex federal environmental statutes. That tendency contributes to ongoing confusion about the scope and coverage of the CWA. During the 2019-2020 Term, the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve a circuit split in the most recent line of cases exhibiting this tendency. Courts have struggled to ascertain the scope of CWA permitting jurisdiction when pollutants reach Water bodies through an intermediary conduit such as groundWater. Some courts have “atomized” that analysis, leading to further analytical confusion. Evaluating this issue in light of the functions CWA permits serve in the whole statutory scheme leads to more logical results. The “conduit” cases thus serve as a good example of the perils of atomization, and how it can be avoided through a whole text analysis. That method, in turn, can allow courts to avoid altogether separate debates about the relevance of legislative history and other non-textual indicia of congressional purpose in statutory construction.
-
coevolution of law and science a Clean Water Act case study
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 2019Co-Authors: Robert W. AdlerAbstract:Despite recent political attacks, science is integral to environmental law and other regulatory regimes that are informed by new scientific research. It is inaccurate, however, to view the relationship between law and science as static. Traditionally, science is either seen as a servant of the legal system, responding to and supporting the applicable statutes and regulations; or we expect the legal system to respond or “catch up” to scientific advances. A more useful model, borrowed from evolutionary biology, is coevolution, an ongoing process in which law and science interAct over time in an iterative process. A case study from the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) biocriteria program illustrates this dynamic process and suggests ways in which law and science can interAct more effectively in the CWA and other regulatory regimes. It also highlights the conceptual difference between “scientific knowledge” and “regulatory knowledge,” and the importance of that distinction for separation of powers and democratic governance in the administration and enforcement of complex regulatory statutes.
-
the decline and possible renewal of aspiration in the Clean Water Act
Washington Law Review, 2013Co-Authors: Robert W. AdlerAbstract:AbstrAct: In the approximately four decades since Congress adopted sweeping amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act-creating what is commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)-the United States has made significant progress in reducing many kinds of Water pollution. It is clear, however, that the United States has not attained the most ambitious of the statutory goals and objectives, including the overarching objective to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters."1 Indeed, although discrete Water quality improvements continue in some places and for some forms of pollution, on a national scale progress toward the CWA's goals has stalled in the past two decades. This Article explores several possible reasons for that failure. Those reasons include subversion of the statutory goals at the administrative, judicial, and legislative levels due to an imbalance in power between groups interested in how the law is implemented; the degree to which the statutory goals are perceived as unrealistic by those charged with implementation; and the potential that Congress intended those ambitious goals to serve as prods for as much progress as possible, but did not Actually expect them to be achieved. The Article then proposes that significantly more progress can be made if we take advantage of available means of defining the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems more clearly and more precisely, using as examples biological Water quality criteria, functional assessment methods for wetlands restoration and protection, and the use of real-world desired future condition definitions for Watersheds. Better definition of what the somewhat imprecise statutory goals mean in the real world might help to overcome the apparent belief that those goals are impossible or infeasible to attain."It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required."2-Winston ChurchillINTRODUCTIONThe federal Clean Water Act (CWA)3 is a mammoth of a statute.4 Over the course of its long history,5 the CWA has spawned an equally impressive battery of implementing regulations 6 and guidance documents,7 and a huge body of case law interpreting and enforcing the statute.8This massive level of statutory and regulatory detail is explained, perhaps, by the reality that Water pollution control is a very complex undertaking. Hundreds of thousands of municipal and industrial "point source[s]"9 discharge a diverse array of "pollutant[s]"10 into the "navigable Waters."11 An even larger set of human Activities known somewhat inelegantly as "nonpoint sources"12-indeed virtually every human use of land-contributes further to the impairment of the rivers, lakes, and coastal Waters that Congress enActed the CWA to protect. Efforts to control each of those pollution sources involve technical, economic, political, and other complexities. The intricate, layered set of principles Congress adopted to distinguish fairly among those sources while still providing sufficient control to protect human health and welfare and the quality of aquatic environments reflect those complications.At times, however, this degree of complexity obscures the relatively straightforward-although admittedly ambitious-overarching objective of the CWA to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters."13 Thus, while many scholars and prActitioners (including me, in both capacities) have written a tremendous body of doctrinal commentary on virtually all aspects of the CWA's implementation, and offered many specific proposals for improvement, 14 my purpose in this essay honoring the fortieth anniversary of the pivotal 1972 CWA amendments is far more basic, but hopefully equally important.Most analysis of CWA implementation suggests that there has been significant progress in implementing many of the statute's discrete technical commands, although other parts of the law have been far less effective. …
-
the decline and possible renewal of aspiration in the Clean Water Act
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: Robert W. AdlerAbstract:In the approximately four decades since Congress adopted sweeping amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act-creating what is commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)-the United States has made significant progress in reducing many kinds of Water pollution. It is clear, however, that the United States has not attained the most ambitious of the statutory goals and objectives, including the overarching objective to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters." Indeed, although discrete Water quality improvements continue in some places and for some forms of pollution, on a national scale progress toward the CWA's goals has stalled in the past two decades. This Article explores several possible reasons for that failure. Those reasons include subversion of the statutory goals at the administrative, judicial, and legislative levels due to an imbalance in power between groups interested in how the law is implemented; the degree to which the statutory goals are perceived as unrealistic by those charged with implementation; and the potential that Congress intended those ambitious goals to serve as prods for as much progress as possible, but did not Actually expect them to be achieved. The Article then proposes that significantly more progress can be made if we take advantage of available means of defining the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems more clearly and more precisely, using as examples biological Water quality criteria, functional assessment methods for wetlands restoration and protection, and the use of real-world desired future condition definitions for Watersheds. Better definition of what the somewhat imprecise statutory goals mean in the real world might help to overcome the apparent belief that those goals are impossible or infeasible to attain.
-
resilience restoration and sustainability revisiting the fundamental principles of the Clean Water Act
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 2010Co-Authors: Robert W. AdlerAbstract:The last truly significant revisions to federal Water pollution legislation (the “Clean Water Act” or “CWA”) occurred in 1972. The CWA has been among the nation’s more successful environmental statutes, especially with respect to control of point source discharges of pollutants into surface Waters. However, when viewed from the broader statutory objective to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s Waters,” the statutory tools are either too dull to accomplish the task, or in some cases the appropriate tools have yet to be forged at all. In this Article, I argue that the focus of the CWA should be modified or expanded in four ways. First, we need to make better use of current concepts of ecosystem resilience rather than the notion of ecosystem “stability” that prevailed when the 1972 law was passed. Second, we need to develop the statutory and other tools necessary to press forward with the restoration goal of the statute. Third, we need to pursue the long-recognized statutory gap in redressing non-industrial forms of Water pollution from a much wider range of sources than traditional industrial and municipal point source discharges. Finally, we need to revise our definitions of “Waters” and “Waters of the United States” to focus on the sustainability of aquatic ecosystems for human and natural uses, rather than on the antiquated concept of navigability.
William L Andreen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
success and backlash the remarkable continuing story of the Clean Water Act
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: William L AndreenAbstract:The Clean Water Act has produced a tremendous amount of progress over the past forty years. Both municipal and industrial discharges have declined sharply, the loss of wetlands has been cut decisively, and Water quality has broadly improved. Much more work, however, remains to be done. Not surprisingly, given the limits of human forethought and political capacity, the original statutory design was not perfect. Furthermore, the statute's implementation has not been perfect due, in large part, to often straitened budgets, instances of bureaucratic timidity and lethargy, and the hostility that some administrations and some Congresses have exhibited towards strong environmental protection. Although more robust administrative Action can improve the effectiveness of the Act in a number of ways, it will take contressional Action to fully address the jurisdictional, budgetary, and structural problems that are obstructing efforts to fully restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's Waters. The prospects for such comprehensive congressional Action are slight at the present time. In fAct, we are enduring yet another backlash on Capitol Hill against regulation as well as against the protections provided by the Clean Water Act. It will take renewed and stronger efforts to inform and galvanize public opinion, not only to defeat the current backlash, but to build the level of support necessary to complete the task that the nation so boldly embarked upon in 1972. This article discusses both the Act's major successes as well as the problems that remain. In addition, the article explores the most recent congressional backlash against the Act's regulatory structure and proposes a number of steps aimed toward turning generalized public support for Clean Water into legislative Action.
-
motivating enforcement institutional culture and the Clean Water Act
Social Science Research Network, 2007Co-Authors: William L AndreenAbstract:Vigorous enforcement is a critical component of any credible environmental protection program. Congress recognized that fAct when it enActed the Clean Water Act in 1972. The Act, therefore, contains an enforceable pollution control scheme, more than adequate federal enforcement tools, and calls upon the states and private citizens to aid in the enforcement of the Act. Unfortunately, enforcement efforts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have lapsed several times in the recent past. This article explores a form of self-regulation that would create an ex ante limit on politically motivated attempts to undermine the Act through non-enforcement. While not fail-proof, the full blossoming of a proud, independent law enforcement culture within EPA's enforcement staff may be one of the most feasible ways in which to maintain a stable and vital enforcement program.
-
motivating enforcement institutional culture and the Clean Water Act
Pace Environmental Law Review, 2007Co-Authors: William L AndreenAbstract:Vigorous enforcement is a critical component of any credible environmental protection program. Congress recognized that fAct when it enActed the Clean Water Act in 1972. The Act, therefore, contains an enforceable pollution control scheme, more than adequate federal enforcement tools, and calls upon the states and private citizens to aid in the enforcement of the Act. Unfortunately, enforcement efforts have lapsed several times in the recent past. This article explores a form of self-regulation that would create an ex ante limit on politically motivated attempts to undermine the Act through non-enforcement. While not fail-proof, the full blossoming of a proud, independent law enforcement culture within the enforcement staff itself may be one of the most feasible ways to maintain a stable and vital enforcement program.
-
Water quality today has the Clean Water Act been a success
Social Science Research Network, 2004Co-Authors: William L AndreenAbstract:The Clean Water Act is at a critical juncture today. New policies, new approaches may soon be adopted before we have had an adequate opportunity to assess how well the old techniques have worked. We need to determine as accurately as possible what has worked and what has failed as we approach the question of change. Although the Act stands in need of revision to fill various gaps in coverage, the aspects of the Act that are prime candidates for reform are not always the ones the critics target. The CWA, in fAct, has been remarkably successful in doing what it was designed to do. The application of technology-based effluent limitations through the permit system has proven to have been a wise approach for the initial control of point sources. Together with the funding of thousands of municipal wasteWater treatment facilities, the technology-based approach has produced remarkable reductions in both municipal and industrial pollution. The CWA has proven successful in other ways as well. The rate at which wetlands are lost has declined some 90 percent since the early 1970s, and the amount of oil spilled annually into our Waters has fallen to one-tenth of the level that prevailed during the 1970s. All of this was done without causing harm to the economy or to our international competitiveness. In fAct, the cost of complying with the Act has been lower than the EPA anticipated, and eleven of our largest trading partners Actually spend more per capita on controlling Water pollution than we do. The economic benefits produced by the Act, moreover, appear greater than many had assumed. The Act and its success stand as a testament to the vision, insight, and courage of its drafters. Unfortunately, but not suprisingly given the limits of human and political capacity, neither the design nor its implementation have been perfect.
Kerry V Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
has surface Water quality improved since the Clean Water Act
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Kerry V Smith, Carlos Valcarcel WollohAbstract:NBER WORKING PAPER SERIESHAS SURFACE Water QUALITY IMPROVED SINCE THE Clean WaterAct?V. Kerry SmithCarlos Valcarcel WollohWorking Paper 18192http://www.nber.org/papers/w18192NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH1050 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02138June 2012Partial support for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.SES-0951366 Decision Center for a Desert City II: Urban Climate Adaptation (DCDC). The viewsexpressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureauof Economic Research.NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies officialNBER publications.© 2012 by V. Kerry Smith and Carlos Valcarcel Wolloh. All rights reserved. Short sections of text,not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit,including © notice, is given to the source.
-
has surface Water quality improved since the Clean Water Act
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012Co-Authors: Kerry V Smith, Carlos Valcarcel WollohAbstract:On the fortieth anniversary of the Clean Water Act this paper reports the first quantitative assessment of the aggregate trends in Water quality in the U.S. using a single standard over the years 1975 to 2011. The analysis suggests that fresh Water lakes for the nation as a whole are about at the same quality levels as they were in 1975. In short, viewed in the aggregate, nothing has changed. An assessment of the fActors influencing the aggregates also suggests that Water quality appears to be affected by the business cycle. This result calls into question the simple descriptions of the change in environmental quality with economic growth that are associated with the Environmental Kuznets Curve.