The Clean Water Act

 

The Clean Water act is a foundational federal law in governing water pollution in the United States. This act plays a major role in addressing and regulating discharges of pollutants into Lake Michigan and the rest of the Great Lakes.  The Clean Water act was first proposed in 1948 and was referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. In 1972, the act was refined, enlarged and renamed to the Clean Water Act. The CWA is a product of traditional government.

The Environmental Protection Agency plays an active role in implementation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act made it illegal to discharge pollutants from point sources into navigable waters without a permit. Point sources are direct sources of pollution. An example of a point source could be a company dumping their toxic waste from production. In spite of these types of situations, the EPA developed a policy of enforcement with regard to discharge of pollutants. The "National Pollution Discharge Elimination System" is the EPA's program of controlling discharges.

From 1948 to 1972, public awareness increased for pollution control. However, it was not until 1972 to that legitimate amendments were passed to govern pollution of our navigable waters. In 1972, a general framework was created to regulate pollutant discharges. The EPA was put in charge of implementing of programs to ensure that regulation is successful. In addition, water quality standards were set for surface waters. Sewage treatment plants were a result of the enactment of the CWA. When the act was first established, it did not address non-point sources of pollution. However, it caused awareness of these sources to grow. It recognized that planning needed to be done to address these non-point sources of pollution.


Since 1972, many laws have changed certain components of the CWA. An example of this is Title I of the Great Lakes Critical Programs act of 1990. This law required the EPA to address 29 toxic pollutants. It established maximum levels for these pollutants with regard to safety for humans, aquatic life and wildlife.

Within the last year, the Obama administration declared an expansion of the Clean Water Act. This expansion is known as the Clean Water Rule. The Clean Water Rule specifies which rivers, streams, wetlands and ponds can be covered by the clean water act. This addition to the CWA will benefit bodies of water such as the great lakes as it will help address pollution in non-point sources. Runoff due to agricultural processes is a primary example. Naturally, in the wake of this addition, there was s opposition from the agriculture sector who claim that this expansion of the CWA will result in economic drawback and increased costs for farmers.

The Clean Water Act is the foundation of addressing water quality in the United States. The federal government is a main actor with respect to the CWA as it was developed as a law by traditional government. The EPA is another main actor as they oversee implementation of specific projects under the CWA. The general public plays a role as we must do our duty to follow the guidelines that the act has enforced. This includes and is not limited to businesses, industry, and anyone who resides in the United States. The Clean Water Act has had a major impact on our Great Lakes thus far. As we move forward, the CWA will only continue to advance as non-point source pollutants become more of a focus.


Sources:

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/27/epa-expands-clean-water-regulations

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act

Microbead Bans

Microbeads

In June of 2014, Illinois SB2727 was signed by the former Democratic Governor Pat Quinn (Illinois General Assembly). The bill bans the use of aquatically-harmful microbeads in cosmetic products, and goes into effect at the end of 2015.  The objective of the bill is to prevent unwanted environmental impacts on Lake Michigan, as well as other aquatic ecosystems. Although similar legislation has been reviewed in other states, Illinois is the first to enact such a ban (TIME).

Governor Quinn issued a statement after its passage: “Banning microbeads will help ensure clean waters across Illinois and set an example for our nation to follow . . . Lake Michigan and the many rivers and lakes across our state are among our most important natural resources. We must do everything necessary to safeguard them” (Chicago Tribune).

Cosmetic microbeads are small, plastic beads that are primarily used in cosmetic and medical products such as exfoliating face wash, toothpaste (Environmental New Network) and medications. The bill sets guidelines for when the manufacturing of the beads must cease (2017) as well as when the actual sale of the beads must cease (2018) (Chicago Tribune).

Environmentally speaking, microbeads pose a tremendous threat to the well-being of aquatic life, and of particular concern pertains to the impact that these beads have on fish in Lake Michigan. The beads, which can be as small as 6 microns (Microbeads), easily pass through the traditional filtration methods that are characteristic of most sewage treatment facilities (Chicago Tribune).

Once these beads make it into Lake Michigan, they are easily consumed by fish due to their resemblance to fish eggs. The beads then often remain in the digestive tract of the fish. Eventually, the beads make it back to land, usually when larger mammals eat fish that contain microbeads. The problems associated range from the mundane to the profound, as the beads may also contain PCB’s (Environmental News Network), a human carcinogen.

Due to the attention that has been generated around the issue, the cosmetic industry has taken notice. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson and L'oreal have indicated that they will gradually phase out the use of such beads, and have began researching environmentally friendly alternatives (Chicago Tribune).

The Bill was advocated heavily by the Illinois Environmental Council. They Worked in conjunction with Chemical Industry Council of Illinois as well as Personal Care Products Council (Illinois Environmental Council) by lobbying for the bill.

Illinois’s pioneering legislation may have provided guidance to its neighbor, Wisconsin, as it too followed the growing number of states that are cracking down on microbeads. Breaking his trend of staunch opposition to environmental protection laws, eco-protection groups such as Clean Wisconsin were ecstatic when Governor Scott Walker signed the bill into law (Reuters).

The Wisconsin law bans the manufacturing of such beads at the beginning of 2018, and bans the sales of such beads by the year 2019.

Some alternative methods for exfoliation include apricots, sand, oatmeal, etc. Some of these methods are arguably less costly than microbeads, thereby providing a tangible incentive for the cosmetic industry. Sources:
http://www.micro-beads.com/Products.aspx

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/02/us-usa-microbeads-wisconsin-idUSKCN0PC01B20150702

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=2727&GAID=12&SessionID=85&LegID=78471

http://www.enn.com/health/article/48631

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-governor-signs-bill-making-illinois-first-state-to-ban-microbeads-20140608-story.html

http://time.com/2917462/why-illinois-banned-microbeads/

Milwaukee Water Works

Cryptosporidium

Milwaukee Water Works (MWW) is a major institution in the metropolitan area that deals specifically with clean drinking water. As a component of the Department of Public works, the Water Works faction operates within the public realm. User fees, however, are accorded in a manner that most commonly manifests itself in the form of a water bill. Water works covers a large geographic area, providing ". . . water to 860,000 people in . . . Milwaukee, Brown Deer, Butler, Greendale, Greenfield, Hales Corners, Shorewood, St. Francis, Wauwatosa, West Allis, and West Milwaukee" (Welcome). MWW has been treating polluted Lake Michigan water since 1919 and

General Service Area

MWW is commonly perceived as a national leader in terms of water quality management, filtration, sanitation and monitoring methods. National visibility came about due to the collaborative response to the 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak. MWW coordinated with city leaders, researchers and water professionals around the world (History of the Milwaukee Water Works). As we shall see, their response garnished one of the most advanced water treatment operations in the world.

Lake Michigan water is now (post 1993) treated at two treatment plans (Linnwood and Howard Avenue) using a comprehensive 9-stage purification process, which includes sedimentation and filtration, ozone treatment, as well as relocating intakes away from polluted areas (Casero).

The real uniqueness associated with Milwaukee's treatment process has to do with the fact that it was the largest ozone retrofit at the time (History of the Milwaukee Water Works). Ozone (O3), a highly-reactive oxidant. Germs, viruses, bacteria, chemicals and other compounds are literally torn apart in the purification process.

Ozone Treatment Facility

O3 gas is bubbled through the water, where it comes into contact with pollutants such as Cryptosporidium. This process makes it incredibly unlikely that contaminated water will reach homes and businesses that utilize MWW services. O3 also reduces the need for potentially harmful sanitation compounds, such as triclosan, which is believed to cause physiological changes in fish (Ceraso).

MWW is also instrumental in its advocacy and monitoring methods. Working in conjunction with the EPA, MWW "monitors and responds to public health issues", provides "real-time data" about water quality and provides "applied research" (History of the Milwaukee Water Works).

Although MWW plays an important role in monitoring and research, it is important to note it's paradoxical nature. It appears that MWW functions in the form of solving mediation and adaptation inadequacies. MWW is a band-aid: it does not hold polluting institutions accountable, and does not have the authority to strengthen regulatory requirements. While some activities of this institution is indicative of problem-solving, a huge component of their operations are confined to an observer status. After all, they merely provide the results of their observations, while simultaneously being forced to respond to the shortcomings of pollution prevention tactics.

The question is: would we need such a comprehensive water treatment system if Lake Michigan was never so dirty to begin with? Their response, while satisfying in nature, brings into question whether or not their efforts unintentionally rationalizes and/or covers up the unfavorable outcomes of polluting activities. Is this indicative of a wicked problem?

Sources:
Casero, Marion. (2013). "20 Years After Fatal Outbreak, Milwaukee Leads on Water Testing". Retrieved from" http://wisconsinwatch.org/2013/05/20-years-after-fatal-outbreak-milwaukee-leads-on-water-testing/. Accessed October 22, 2015.

"History of the Milwaukee Water Works". (2014). Retrieved from: http://milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/WaterWorks/files/brochure-HistoryoftheMWWNorthP.pdf. Accessed October 21, 2015.

"Welcome to the Milwaukee Water Works. Milwaukee, Wisconsin -- The Global Freshwater City". Milwaukee Water Works: Safe, Abundant Drinking Water. Retrieved from: http://milwaukee.gov/water. Accessed October 21, 2015.

Images:
http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/local/driving/milwaukeemetro.gif

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/2BC4/production/_84740211_a3ea3db6-63d1-4249-b7d4-f2aba314f7ee.jpg

http://u6efc47qb7f1g5v06kf9kfdcn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Filter-Gallery-MWW-LinnwoodPlant.jpg

Environmental Protection Agency

 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency is a very important actor involved in managing the Great Lake’s water. The EPA focuses on human health and also the environment. President Richard Nixon first introduced the agency and on December 2^nd, 1970 it began distributing regulations. Washington D.C is the location of the EPA’s headquarters. Regina McCarthy, a specialist on air quality and environmental health, is the present day administrator.

Overall, the EPA contributes to many environmental problems and contains many purposes. Some of these purposes consist of the protection of human health and their environment, the enforcement of effective and fair federal laws, and the management of accurate and helpful information on human health and environmental risks. The agency accomplishes these tasks by developing and administering regulations. For example, when Congress composes an environmental law, the EPA implements it by writing regulations. The agency usually sets national standards that the states can administer through regulations that they come up with on their own. If the states do not meet the standards the EPA sets, the agency comes into play and helps them get to where they need to be.

The EPA can follow through with their intentions by providing grants to educational institutions, state environmental programs, and non-profit organizations. That is where just about half of their budget winds up going. These groups can then put that money to use by conducting scientific studies. Also, they share information with other countries and organizations in hope to work on a vast majority of environmental problems together.

The Environmental Protection Agency plays a large role in the protection of our Great Lake’s water supply. They have put fourth a great effort into not only ensuring the safety of the water, but also improving it. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is how the agency manages the United State’s activity. An example of a problem the EPA monitors is the levels of PCB’s in the air and precipitation of the Great Lakes. These substances have many harmful effects and can be dangerous to local wildlife. A large amount of fish in the Great Lakes contain such high levels of these materials which makes it highly dangerous for other wildlife and us to consume. The EPA also works with Environment Canada to monitor the levels of toxic substances in the air around the Great Lakes region. The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network was formed under the GLWQA where samples of the air and precipitation have been collected since the 90’s.   Below is a map of the sampling stations. The red squares are rural areas that demonstrate background conditions that are affected by pollution from urban areas. The blue represents the stations that monitor the levels of toxics in the air surrounding the lakes. One of the objectives that the EPA is working on is constantly monitoring and studying the changes in concentration.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency is an extremely important actor when it comes to the pollution of our Great Lakes. This large agency sets standards and regulations the states need to follow in order to help keep our Great Lakes safe. The EPA has many focuses, but is putting a lot of effort into the Great Lakes water quality and pollution. Since the Great Lakes hold a large percentage of our freshwater, it is considered an extremely essential resource that needs protection. The EPA is a large actor working to fix the pollution in our Great Lakes.

Source:

http://www3.epa.gov/greatlakes/glindicators/air/airb.html

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do

Great Lakes Science Advisory Board

The Great Lakes Science Advisory Board is a notable actor when it comes to addressing pollution in Lake Michigan and The Great Lakes overall. It can be classified as an international scientific advisory body. The primary duty of the board is to provide research to the International Joint Commission (IJC) and the Great Lakes Water Quality Board. The Great Lakes Science Advisory Board was established as a result of The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978.

The Great Lakes Science Advisory Board has an equal number of members stationed in both Canada and the United States. The binational location of its members only makes sense as the Great Lakes are geographically positioned between the midwestern states and Canada. This team works together to provide beneficial scientific advice to the organizations described above upon referral. They provide analysis on opinions or ongoing issues with regard to the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. The Science Advisory Board is comprised of two committees. These two committees are known as the Research Coordination Committee and the Science Priority Committee. Each committee has two chair persons who are selected by the IJC. One chair person from each committee is then selected to serve as the board chair persons. The Great Lakes Science Advisory Board aims to have an equal number of governmental and non-governmental members. The Research Coordination Committee consists of mostly government research managers whereas the Science Priority Committee consists of mostly non-governmental scientists. Other then their governmental status, the board strives to have diversity. In addition to research managers of government and non-government status, they look to recruit representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), great lakes commission, Metis and American tribes. Regardless of their status, members of the board are required to have experience in dealing with the Great Lakes environmental problems. These problems involve issues in the fields of chemistry, biology, environmental science and many more.

The Great Lakes Science Advisory Board has a number of publications within their subsection of the IJC website. These publications address a number of projects that the board has been involved with throughout the past few decades. One publication I found interesting was a report published by the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board which addressed phosphorus monitoring in the Lake Erie Basin. Below is a map produced in the report of sampling frequencies. 

Source:
http://ijc.org/files/publications/CGLRM_WorkGroupReport_PhosphorusMonitoringLakeErie_Final.pdf

There are multiple geographic scales affected by The Great Lakes Science Advisory Board. Locally, Milwaukee is affected as it resides on Lake Michigan. Regionally, individual states (midwest) and provinces of Canada are directly affected by the management of the Great Lakes. Nationally, Canada and the United States are affected respectively. Beyond the national scale, the Great Lakes even have an importance globally. The Great Lakes are the largest body of freshwater on this planet. Therefore, addressing scientific research in relation to the lakes is very important. The board is a crucial actor when it comes to managing pollution of this delicate resource. As we move toward the future, monitoring the conditions of the Great Lakes is going to become increasingly important. The Great Lakes Advisory Board serves as a useful resource of scientific researchers of both government and non-government status. The board is a prominent actor in the environmental governance of monitoring pollution in the Great Lakes watershed.