United States regulation of point source water pollution

Other pollutants may indirectly impact ecosystem services by causing a change in water conditions that allows for a harmful activity to take place.

This includes sediment (loose soil) inputs that decrease the amount of light that can penetrate through the water, reducing plant growth and diminishing oxygen availability for other aquatic organisms.

Pollution of the river had become prevalent in the early 1800s[7] as contaminants from municipal and industrial discharges, bank erosion, commercial/residential development, atmospheric deposition, hazardous waste disposal sites, urban storm water runoff, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and wastewater treatment plant bypasses were discharged into the river.

[10] The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 contained provisions that made discharging refuse matter into navigable waters of the United States illegal without a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

[11][12] The focus of the law was controlling obstructions to navigation, such as dumping refuse into rivers, and discharging oil from ships and boats.

[13] By the mid-20th century, water pollution laws in the United States began to include health- and use-based standards to protect environmental and economic interests.

Technology based effluent limits establish a minimum level of pollution controls for all point source discharges.

The Phase II rule required that all municipalities, construction sites of 1 acre (4,000 m2) or more, and other large property owners (such as school districts) have NPDES permits for their stormwater discharges.

[38] The removed solids constitute sewage sludge, which typically receive further treatment prior to final disposal on land.

[43]" The policy supports the trading of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus and sediment load reductions, but in order for it to be extended to other contaminants, more scrutiny is required.

The EPA has acknowledged that states have not adequately funded their monitoring programs, which has led to some uncertainty regarding the quality of most surface waters.

[50] In 2000, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers.

This ruling struck down the Corps' ability to prevent the construction of a disposal site for non-hazardous waste in Illinois based on power derived from the commerce clause.

[51] The Corps cited the Migratory Bird Rule when they initially denied the section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: "Congress passes the CWA for the state purpose of 'restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'

In doing so,, Congress chose to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use... of land and water resources...".

Coeur Alaska planned to utilize froth flotation in order to extract gold, creating 4.5 million tons of tailings over the course of its lifetime.

The mining company opted to dispose of the tailings in nearby Lower Slate Lake, requiring a permit to comply with the Clean Water Act.

Coeur Alaska proposed to temporarily re-route nearby streams around Lower Slate Lake until they could purify the water and re-introduce the natural flow patterns.

Tailings from froth flotation contain high concentrations of heavy metals, including aluminum, which have toxic effects of aquatic organisms.

They asserted that the law is ambiguous as to whether section 306 applies to fill materials and found no erroneous or unreasonable behavior by the Corps.

As a result, although the tailings would explicitly violate the Clean Water Act under section 402, the Corps may issue a dredge and fill permit.

Economically, since WQT is a market-based policy instrument, substantial savings can be generated while still achieving a mandated water quality goal.

[42] The success of a WQT market is determined by several factors including the pollutant of interest, physical characteristics of the affected watershed, control costs, trading mechanisms, and stakeholder participation and willingness.

Currently, most nonpoint sources of water pollution are unregulated or, assuming detection occurs, have relatively small consequences for violations.

A large proportion of the population lacks access to clean drinking water and sanitation triggering public health concerns.

[59]) The US-Mexico Border Program was also created by the agreement and placed under the management of EPA (through its Region 6 and 9 offices) to correct the oversights of previous institutions and give guidance to cross-border environmental policy.

The three institutions work together to identify, develop, finance and implement projects in the communities and certify them as "environmentally sustainable" subsequently funding them through a grant-making process.

Among other requirements,[60] they have to address an eligible environmental sector;[61] must have a U.S.-side benefit; and have adequate planning, operations and maintenance, and pretreatment provisions.

[62] The border program has also facilitated direct provision of infrastructure by the federal and state governments such as the construction of wastewater treatment plants, sewer lines, and raw water storage lagoons.