The Clean Water Act- Forty Years Later

In my opinion, heavy, detrimental polluting of our waterways started with the Industrial Revolution. The dumping of industrial waste was unregulated, and lead to some severe pollution in many areas. One of the things that helped spark a revolution with water laws was in 1969, when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. Yes, you read that right. The river was so polluted with oil and God knows what else that it actually caught on fire. And I was surprised to learn, from my research for this article, that the river didn't catch on fire just once. The Cuyahoga River had caught on fire nine times since 1868. I wonder why it was the fire in 1969 that broke the camel's back. Perhaps that fire came at a time when the environmental revolution was starting to pick up. After a lot of regulation and clean up, the river's water quality has improved, and the Cuyahoga river is now one of the American Heritage Rivers. And of course, there are no more fires on the river.


One of the laws inspired from the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire was the Clean Water Act. The original statute was passed in 1948, but there have been many amendments and additions (another thing I learned!); a major one and the one most people people refer to is the Clean Water Act of 1972. The Clean Water Act set quality standards for surface water and set down regulation for discharging pollutants.


So how much of an impact has the Clean Water Act had, at least here in New Jersey? 


The state's waterways are definitely better than they were, as there is no more widespread and rampant pollution, but are New Jersey's waterways clean at all? 


According to a report by the Asbury Park Press, no. Except for one that is. The Big  Flat Brook, located in Stokes State Forest in Sussex County (Funnily enough, the School of Conservation, the field station owned by my school, is also located in Stokes State Forest and really close to the Big Flat Brook) is the only waterway in New Jersey to pass all of the water quality tests. Apparently is is safe to drink after basic treatment (which I assume is to filter out the suspended solids). You can also swim in it and eat the fish with no restrictions.


I'm not saying that the Clean Water Act has been useless. It just isn't having a big enough impact. There are too many variables when it comes to things that affect water quality. All of those variables need to align correctly to ensure good water quality. And as we all probably know, Murphy's Law usually prevails. 


So what should be done to allow the maximum benefits of the Clean Water Act? First of all we need better enforcement. That proves to be tricky however, because that requires more manpower, time, and money. Perhaps we need to create incentives for offending companies to follow regulations closely?


Another thing is to stop passing stupid laws like the one that allows waivers to be granted for homeowners or businesses to pollute on a case by case basis. The law is the law, so why are we creating exceptions?


And lastly, we need more public education. Getting the masses to cooperate with environmental regulation and become aware of problems is the key to making lasting changes, in my opinion.


Sources:  Ohio History Central, Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Summary of the Clean Water Act, 

Oh, The Irony....

I read an article in the newspaper the other day that I wanted to write about, and while looking for the online article to link to, I found out about a cool new tool from the Environmental Protection Agency- the 

Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool. You can search for information about water pollution sources, such as what companies are polluting waterways, and the contaminants. I did a broad search for the pollution in my EPA Region (#2, which includes New York, New Jersey, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and got a list of the top ten facilities discharging contaminants (by weight), and the top 10 facilities discharging toxic contaminants. I was really surprised by who made the list:

A list of the top ten facility discharges of toxic compounds by TWPE (toxic weighted pound equivalent)
which is calculated by multiplying the compounds mass by its toxic weighting factor (each compound has a different TWF to indicate its toxicity).

Dupont is a chemical company, so I'm not surprised it made the list; Sugar Bay Plantation Resort is a hotel; AES Somerset is a coal fired power station; the rest of the entries are either waste water or sewage treatment plants. What the heck?

I went through the first ten pages of the 459 total pages that listed all of the facilities and found the following entries that I would have intuitively though would outrank a wastewater treatment plant: the General Motors Plant in Syracuse, NY; a nuclear power plant in Ontario, NY; Barceloneta Chemical Lab in Puerto Rico; and  a Bacardi Rum facility in Puerto Rico. Some of the facilities that made the top 10 are listed more than once with in the first few pages for having a top TWPE (see picture caption for an explanation) for more than one chemical.

I am so surprised to see the very facilities working towards cleaner waterways are beating out facilities like a nuclear power plant. However, looking at the top pollutant for the water treatment plants you notice that 6 of the 7 listed are discharging chlorine, which is used for disinfection.

But then why is the Tallman Island WPCP (water pollution control plant) listed on page 10 of 459 for a top pollutant of cyanide? And why is the Niagara Falls Waste Water Treatment Plant listed on page 8 for mercury? Also on page 8 is a water pollution control plant in Jamaica, NY for cyanide. The Ward's Island WPCP is on page 3 of 459 for discharging ammonia as NH3.

 But before I go on a tirade about it, I need to remember that I'm no expert in waste water treatment, and do not understand the nuances of the process. So I did some research  to double check myself and found that it is indeed possible to remove heavy metals from water, and there are a variety of methods to do so (here's a link to one way).

I know that waste water treatment can not remove all of the contaminants..... but I am flabbergasted that waste water treatment plants are among the top polluters for heavy metals and nasty chemicals. I'd like to know where the water originates from after contamination but before treatment. That may give some insight as to why these waste water treatment plants are discharging pollution. Another thing that must be taken into consideration is the size of the water body that is receiving the discharge- perhaps the actual concentrations of these contaminants in the water and sediment are not all that high.

If there is anyone out there with more knowledge on this subject, feel free to comment or email me with an explanation to this oddity, and I'll follow up on my blog with it.