Nonpoint source water pollution regulations in the United States
[20] Some aspects of NPS water pollution are regulated at the federal, state, and local level, but to a lesser extent than point sources.
In addition, EPA's "Clean Water Action Plan" (2009) outlines a strategy for enforcing CWA requirements, some of which are applicable to nonpoint sources.
[26] That definition states: "The term 'point source' means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
[25] The section notes that any areawide management plan must discuss how to identify "agriculturally and silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution," and "runoff from manure disposal areas, and from land used for livestock and crop production.
[30] This provision, also non-regulatory, authorizes EPA to fund demonstration programs and provide technical assistance to state and local governments.
[25] The section requires states to identify water bodies that cannot meet water-quality standards without control of nonpoint sources.
[25] Another problem with 319 (and 208) is that there is no enforcement mechanism[31] In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (1990), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that "Section 319 does not require states to penalize nonpoint source polluters who fail to adopt best management practices; rather it provides for grants to encourage the adoption of such practices.
"[32] Section 404 of the CWA requires that a permit be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the "discharge of dredged and fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.
[38] Based on that case, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the EPA created its 2008 CAFO Rule.
Both the CZMA and the CWA direct the states to draft and implement NPS plans, and the federal government plays a limited role.
[48] The majority of state plans rely on education and technical assistance, including the development of BMPs, to reduce NPS water pollution.
Local municipality, water conservation districts and other entities with land management responsibility provide planning, zoning, and technical and informational assistance to control NPS pollution.
[54] Watershed groups use funding from IDEM to create incentive programs for the use of BMPs, as well as provide public information and education.
[61] Environmental regulations for nonpoint sources must be expressed in directives that are specifically understandable by the regulatory target and enforceable by subsequent government intervention.
As noted earlier, the CWA requires state governments to set TMDLs based on both point source and NPS effluent.
However, conventional command and control policies could potentially influence industry structure and cause political reluctance in the event that it could bankrupt businesses.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have written numerous design standards on the assumption that a particular technology exists whose performance can meet the regulations.
These regulations can include emission limits that specify the rate, amount, and kinds of pollutants that may be emitted from a given source over a specific period.
The EPA's various effluent limitations for water pollution under the CWA are simply a few of the many environmental regulations that are nominally performance standards.
Product bans and limitations apply to NPS pollution through restrictions on things like chemicals, pesticides, and food additives.
Things that a tax can be based on include, the use of dirty inputs, a proxy for individual emissions, or some measure of ambient pollution level.
Another way is to impose special purpose district property taxes on farmland that does not adopt BMPs or employ methods to reduce nonpoint source pollution.
Taxes on pesticides, however, would be limited by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which takes into account economic impacts.
Corporate investments beneficial to the environment can be encouraged by providing companies with public funds, tax breaks, or other benefits to subsidize such activities.
Regulations issued under other statutes are intended to increase the effectiveness of liability rules by requiring that facilities seeking permits to handle hazardous materials have sufficient insurance or other resources to pay for potential damage caused by their activities.
[citation needed] A number of policies have been developed that are intended to inform regulators and private citizens as to how NPS effluent can be better controlled.
One example is with the CZMA mentioned earlier, the EPA is required to provide states with a listing of BMPs for controlling NPS coastal pollution.
Environmental contracting involved an agreement between a government agency and a source to waive certain regulatory requirements in return for an enforceable commitment to achieve superior performances.
[50] Effective management of NPS pollution requires a partnership among state, federal, local agencies as well as private interests and the public.
Examples of coordination include the federal Clean Water State Revolving Fund and governmental spending programs under the CWA and the Farm Bill[66][better source needed]
