The Water Efficiency Blogs

The Blogger

Elizabeth Cutright Water Efficiency Editor

More from this blogger

  1. Bridging the Gap
  2. Mind the Gap
  3. Back to School
  4. The Future of Southwest Water
  5. What medium for your message
  6. We (Might) Need a Bigger Boat
  7. Worst Case Scenarios
  8. Healthy Conservation
  9. Sustaining Supply
  10. Secret Handshake
  11. Second City Water
  12. Spills, Bills and Climate Change
  13. When Water and Energy Collide
  14. Blue Fever LEED
  15. Recycled Winter
  16. Energy Awareness
  17. Pollution and Source Protection
  18. Conveyance Catch Up
  19. Volume and Vintners
  20. Smithsonian Smarts
  21. Imbedded Industry
  22. Shake, Rattle, and Roll
  23. Low-Flow Hubris
  24. High Efficiency Plumbing
  25. Water Saving at the Corporate Level
  26. Reuse Wrap Up
  27. Household Water Use
  28. What's Your Waterprint
  29. Lawsuits, Pipelines, and One Tiny Fish
  30. One Million Acre-Feet
  31. Rainwater Ordinance
  32. Gauging Risks
  33. Batten Down the Hatches!
  34. WaterSense for New Homes
  35. Tri-State Co-Op
  36. Nuclear Desalination
  37. What does a worst-case scenario look like
  38. All Bark and No Bite
  39. Subsidized Water
  40. Keeping It Local
  41. Private or Public
  42. What's Your Standard
  43. WE Professionals Take a Bow
  44. Pipe Bursts, News at 11
  45. Drought, Demand, and the GW Bogeyman
  46. Smart Water Use
  47. Delta Update
  48. Alternative Sources
  49. Water Saved Is Water Earned
  50. Mile-High Metering
  51. Smart Water Grid
  52. Seeing Into the Future
  53. Can Two Rights Make a Wrong
  54. Thinking Big, Going Small
  55. The Dead Zone
  56. Pipe Dreams
  57. Interdependency
  58. Low-Tech Leak Detection
  59. Money-Management Musical Chairs
  60. A First for Rainwater Harvesting
  61. Drought Dangers
  62. All Eyes on the West
  63. Climate Chaos
  64. Preemptive Strike
  65. A Place With No Meters
  66. Water Buffaloes in the Delta
  67. Wildfires and Water Conservation
  68. National Drinking Water Week
  69. Finally Teamwork
  70. Tainted Water
  71. Hit them in the pocketbook!
  72. The Place to Be
  73. Where the WE's Are
  74. Let's Be Friends
  75. Free Market Water
  76. Role Model
  77. Budget Basics
  78. Breaking It All Down
  79. Unsung Heroes
  80. It's Raining, It's Pouring..
  81. Meter Management
  82. Finding Funding
  83. Turning Lemons Into Lemonade
  84. New Rules for a New Year
  85. Is it a water grab or a reasonable solution
  86. Drops and Crops
  87. Dear Santa..
  88. Not Just Storm Clouds on the Horizon
  89. Wondering After a Winter Break
  90. Virtual Water
  91. Water and Compromise
  92. Reuse Revisited
  93. Turf Revisited
  94. Taking it to the Next Level
  95. The Nine Steps
  96. Water Lemons
  97. To Turf or Not to Turf
  98. News You May Have Missed
  99. The Wall Street Ripple Effect
  100. Let it Rain!
  101. Another Perspective
  102. De-Centralizing
  103. Personal Responsibility Versus Government Action
  104. Field Trippin' in the Garden
  105. Grand Theft Water
  106. Drowning Dragon
  107. Money Changes Everything
  108. Sharks! Tomatoes! Astroturf!
  109. Titans of Industry - Should Big Business Control The Tap
  110. 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
 
 
*