by: Corey Lovato
I read an article in the New York Times that has left me concerned (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html). The article details the clean water laws that are supposed to apply throughout the country and the various ways in which they are often neglected. Essentially, the laws are written to be enforced on a state-by-state basis, lacking federal oversight by the EPA or any other federal agency.
The result is often that the laws are enforced to different degrees in different places, and many violations are overlooked. This may be for as sinister a reason as the local politicians getting their campaign funds from the very companies they are supposed to regulate, or perhaps a more benign but equally unacceptable reason. For example, funding is subject to state policy, and may be inadequate to enforce the laws. Additionally, the lack of centralized oversight may be a deterrent for enforcement officials to fulfill their duties, as there is often no penalty for failing to properly enforce the laws.
The consequences can be dire; affected residents report everything from dental problems and skin rashes to cancer and organ failure. My girlfriend is a first year law student and was assigned to read the book A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr to study the legal implications of this. Basically, it's so difficult to prove a link between a chemical dumped by a certain company and an effect in a citizen that lawsuits are ineffective. In effect, no solution has yet been found to fully regulate water pollution.
8 comments:
This is a nice counter to the article on lobbying posted by prof. Miller. When looking at pollution law/policy, it is quite obvious that money DOES buy power.
I think that the best form of regulating these toxic waste sources is by a federal law. How is a city supposed to regulate what the runoff collects after a rain storm? Fertilizers from residential lawns is getting into the systems. Perhaps a regulation on the chemicals allowed in fertilizers?
I can see where this would be a tricky issue. Not only is regulation lacking but it appears that it is hard to figure out where exactly the chemicals can be tracked down to and who can regulate those chemicals. The runoff fertilizer example that Sarah pointed out would be very difficult to enforce if the various effects can't be directly linked because of poor quality water with multiple toxins. If the pollution sources can't be stopped then hopefully there could be some sort of water detox program with enforced federal guidelines.
Ideally firms should be forced to internalize their negative externalities. If this happened pollution would be a lot less of an issue. Unfortunately it is hard to locate the source of some pollutants and hard to implement policies that make the firms liable. I think that there needs to be a federal regulating organization (EPA) that locates the source of pollutants and enforces cleanup by the polluter. Since water tables and rivers do not always correlate with one state it is hard to regulate them.
David McKinley
This would be a very hard goal to enforce, yet this is extremely critical. There are multiple points where pollutants enter the water, and assuming that they can be identified, I feel that at the federal level, monetary consequences should be implemented because money seems to be the most powerful factor in this issue.
I agree that federal oversight needs to be increased in order to deal with point and non-point source pollutants. The lack of consistency between state and federal regulators is a problem. I have had some experience at a federal agency and there was definitely a disconnect between the state and federal levels. Data was sometimes different as well as enforcement methods. In order to prevent further problems, it is crucial for increased cooperation between state and federal officials as well as increased federal regulation.
To further complicate things, some chemicals/toxins in mining states like CO come from abandoned mines whose owner-companies have long since disappeared and thus have no one to take responsibility for.
I agree with the majority who commented, federal solutions are needed because there needs to be some body of government dedicated to regulation firms and clean up. Or maybe a private firm could specialize in clean up of industries and mines, the latter of which could contract out? Capitalism at its best?
I think it's a good policy to have states overlook their water, but i also think that there needs to be standard regulations for ever state to be held up to. I definitely see the problem in determining where the pollution is coming from, but i think states have the ability to do that, and the federal government needs to make sure they are investigating and holding up to national standards.
Post a Comment