The Water Efficiency Blogs

The Blogger

Elizabeth Cutright Water Efficiency Editor

More from this blogger

  1. Reuse Wrap Up
  2. Household Water Use
  3. What's Your Waterprint
  4. Lawsuits, Pipelines, and One Tiny Fish
  5. One Million Acre-Feet
  6. Rainwater Ordinance
  7. Gauging Risks
  8. Batten Down the Hatches!
  9. WaterSense for New Homes
  10. Tri-State Co-Op
  11. Nuclear Desalination
  12. What does a worst-case scenario look like
  13. All Bark and No Bite
  14. Subsidized Water
  15. Keeping It Local
  16. Private or Public
  17. What's Your Standard
  18. WE Professionals Take a Bow
  19. Pipe Bursts, News at 11
  20. Drought, Demand, and the GW Bogeyman
  21. Smart Water Use
  22. Delta Update
  23. Alternative Sources
  24. Water Saved Is Water Earned
  25. Mile-High Metering
  26. Smart Water Grid
  27. Seeing Into the Future
  28. Can Two Rights Make a Wrong
  29. Thinking Big, Going Small
  30. The Dead Zone
  31. Pipe Dreams
  32. Interdependency
  33. Low-Tech Leak Detection
  34. Money-Management Musical Chairs
  35. A First for Rainwater Harvesting
  36. Drought Dangers
  37. All Eyes on the West
  38. Climate Chaos
  39. Preemptive Strike
  40. A Place With No Meters
  41. Water Buffaloes in the Delta
  42. Wildfires and Water Conservation
  43. National Drinking Water Week
  44. Finally Teamwork
  45. Tainted Water
  46. Hit them in the pocketbook!
  47. The Place to Be
  48. Where the WE's Are
  49. Let's Be Friends
  50. Free Market Water
  51. Role Model
  52. Budget Basics
  53. Breaking It All Down
  54. Unsung Heroes
  55. It's Raining, It's Pouring..
  56. Meter Management
  57. Finding Funding
  58. Turning Lemons Into Lemonade
  59. New Rules for a New Year
  60. Is it a water grab or a reasonable solution
  61. Drops and Crops
  62. Dear Santa..
  63. Not Just Storm Clouds on the Horizon
  64. Wondering After a Winter Break
  65. Virtual Water
  66. Water and Compromise
  67. Reuse Revisited
  68. Turf Revisited
  69. Taking it to the Next Level
  70. The Nine Steps
  71. Water Lemons
  72. To Turf or Not to Turf
  73. News You May Have Missed
  74. The Wall Street Ripple Effect
  75. Let it Rain!
  76. Another Perspective
  77. De-Centralizing
  78. Personal Responsibility Versus Government Action
  79. Field Trippin' in the Garden
  80. Grand Theft Water
  81. Drowning Dragon
  82. Money Changes Everything
  83. Sharks! Tomatoes! Astroturf!
  84. Titans of Industry - Should Big Business Control The Tap
  85. Welcome to the New Site!
view all

WE Editor's Blog

June 29th, 2009 12:56pm PST

Purpose and Intent

Posted By Elizabeth Cutright Comments

On June 24, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the discharge of 210,000 gallons of mining waste did not violate the Clean Water Act (CWA). On the surface, the decision sounds counterintuitive. After all, how could dumping a couple hundred gallons of potentially toxic mining waste into a 23-acre lake outside Juneau, Alaska, not impact water quality and thus run counter to the intent of the CWA? After all, according the EPA’s own Web site, the CWA is “the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States.” (Emphasis added). 

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained the court’s decision as preordained due to changes in the CWA at the hands of the Bush Administration, which in 2002 changed the original definition of “fill material” in the act in order to allow for the discharge of contaminated mining waste. Justice Kennedy argued that the court must “accord deference” to the Army Corps of Engineers’s interpretation of the act, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent that equal deference should be paid to the intent and purpose of the CWA itself which, she argued, plainly states that waterways cannot be used for waste disposal.

The mining company is promising to pretreat its wastewater prior to dumping, and as the former editor of Onsite Water Treatment (www.onsitewater.com), I know that the careful and judicious treatment of wastewater can result in almost pristine discharge. But onsite wastewater treatment cannot be taken lightly, and without knowledge of exactly what system the mining company will install, I cannot say with any authority whether its efforts will be successful or if the lake will turn into a stew of toxic runoff unfit for any plant or animal life.

So what do you think? Should the court have stuck by the original intent of the CWA, or should the mining company be given the benefit of the doubt? Can successful wastewater treatment expand our notions of water quality protection and open up new resources in the process, or will unmonitored and poorly executed treatment systems doom our waterways?

 

What Do You Think?

Post a Comment

Be the first to tell us what you think!

Post a Comment

Not a subscriber? Sign Up
 
 
*