The Clean Water Act

[PhoenixFire1987]

Do you think that the Clean Water Act should be put back in?

In my opinion, yes. i lived on a farm that had contaminated water and got really sick. all because of the illegal dumping at a neighbor's property.  

[Lord Bitememan]

If the dumping was illegal in the first place, and that didn't stop it from happening, what is the Clean Water Act going to do about it?

Secondly, what do you mean by put back in? The Clean Water Act was never repealed.  

[PhoenixFire1987]

Bush took it out. and also, whether dumpin is illegal or not, some companies still do it. and the clan water act can at least try and stop it.  

[Lord Bitememan]

He did not. Actually, this is Constitutionally impossible. The Clean Water Act was signed into law before Bush was even president, and as you recall from high school civics class the president lacks legislative powers, which would be required to repeal a law. I think what you're confusing this with is an executive order that Clinton signed on his parting days in office that would have cut the arsenic levels in drinking water from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. Bush reversed the order (which was directed to the EPA) upon assuming office. Now, mind you, the arsenic level of 50 ppb was set in the 1940s, and since then live expectancy has increased by more than ten years, so appearantly this is not the biggest health risk to mankind that there is (especially considering only highly developed nations could ever dream of reaching a 10 ppb level in drinking water). Possibly you have conflated this act with recent decisions out of the Supreme Court that have found that the Act overreached or did not apply in certain instances of water regulation. Most of these involve the power of CWA to cover waters that are fully contained within a state or are not navigable (the legal basis for CWA is the Commerce Clause, not the Disposal Clause). Neither the court's decisions, nor Bush's repeal of a tangential EPA finding serve to legislatively repeal the Act.

So, I'm glad you agree with me that the acts are still illegal. By very definition the fact that it is illegal means the government is already trying to stop the aforementioned conduct. And, rest assured, even if you repealed the CWA tomorrow, dumping hazardous waste in the manner you described still violates scads of state and federal laws. Failing to properly dispose of hazardous waste itself is a crime irrespective of if it contaminates a water source or not. So even if you reinstate all the unconstitutionally overreaching provisions of CWA, the dumping you talked about would still occur. They were already violating state and federal laws when they did it, tacking one more law on that they would have violated wouldn't have made a difference. It's like saying we need to make an anti-rape law so the government can try to stop rapists; it's already against the law and people still do it, more laws won't help.  

[PhoenixFire1987]

the goevernment aint trying hard enough. and i dont remember a whole lot from civics. since i have a bad memory and didnt learn a whole lot due to the teacher i had  

[Lord Bitememan]

Then what you really mean is that the government needs to create pollution prevention programs, not more superfluous laws. Making a law doesn't stop someone from violating it, and the government can't come in and arrest you BEFORE you commit the crime. So all the government can really do is come in AFTER someone has broken the law in order to punish them. Either that, or we're talking about cameras and loudspeakers on every person so the government can see you at all times and shout admonishments to you before you do it. It would need to be that extensive to produce the sort of results you envision. Low and behold, simply saying "this is illegal" does not mean people aren't going to do it.

Now, if you create a program, like free curbside toxic waste removal, that's a prevention measure that might entice some people not to dump. That would be new legislation, not a feature of the current CWA.