Environmental Impact Statement- a statement needed to be written before any federal agency undertakes an activity that will “significantly” affect the quality of the human environment. Acid Rain- Rain, snow, or dust particles that fall down to earth that are high in acidity. A source of acid rain comes from burning certain types of coal that have high amounts of sulfur. It can cause disastrous consequences by eliminating wild life in areas such as forests and lakes. Command and control strategy-rule makers and rule enforcers know how to achieve the greatest environmental gain at the least cost. Offsets- an environmental rule that a company in an area with polluted air can offset its own pollution by reducing pollution from another source in the area. Bubble standard-the total amount of air pollution that can come from a given factory. A company is to decide which specific sources within that factory must be reduced and how to meet the bubble standard. Pollution allowances- a reduction in pollution below that required by law that can be used to cover a future plant expansion or sold to another company whose pollution emissions are above the legal requirements.
Clean Air Act- legislation enacted by congress to control air pollution on a national level Scientific uncertainty- experts either do not know or disagree about what is happening within a given topic and how to change it. Thus it is very difficult to come to a consensus as to what shall be done for a given situation.
Entrepreneurial politics- Mobilizing decision-makers act with strong, often emotional appeals in order to overcome the political advantages of the client groups that oppose a change.
Adversarial politics- cities and states fight with the federal government over what standards should apply where.
Work Cited Wilson, James, and Dilulio, John Jr. American Government Institutions and Policies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
Issue:
Should there be more federal regulation on drinking water?
Interest Groups involved in the discussion of whether to have increased federal regulations on drinking water: Clean Water Action: An organization of 1.2 million members working to empower people to take action to protect America's waters, build healthy communities and to make democracy work for everybody. They are in favor of stricter and tougher regulations by the federal government on drinking water. Environmentalists, including Senator Russ Feingold, who want to keep rivers, streams, and other bodies of water clean would support increased federal regulation. Protected water sources provide a good living environment for wildlife and a good source of drinking water. States, their Governors and Legislators: States are not in favor of increased federal regulation of drinking water. States have limited number of resources but they would be able to narrow in on specific problems and increase the well-being of the public. Federal regulation often neglects larger risks and spends huge sums of money on insignificant risks. In the past local government and private firms has done more for water quality then the federal government. Much of the improvement in water quality occurred before the federal government stepped in. The water supply industry and its associations: The water supply industry is not in favor of increased federal regulations on drinking water. Stricter regulations might cause the industry to usher in some new, more expensive technologies and services. If there were more federal regulation, profit for this industry would go down as it would have to spend money to accommodate the new regulations. Researchers, particularly those who have specialized in empirical research on the useful life of pipe: This group is in favor of increased federal regulation of drinking water. Increased regulations would cause differently engineered pipes to be designed. Researchers would have to conduct tests on the new types of pipes and their income and workload would increase.
Pro: The government needs to implement more regulations on drinking water to maintain the health of the public. The many contaminants found in water can be extremely hazardous if they are not severely reduced or eliminated completely. The federal government sets these levels and makes sure that local water supplies follow this mandate. Even so, local governments and private water suppliers have direct responsibility for the quality of the water that flows to your tap. The federal government needs to have more control and regulations over local water supplies so that Americans are protected from deadly chemicals. The effects of arsenic in drinking water can include thickening and discoloration of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness in hands and feet; partial paralysis; and blindness. Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate. Lead in drinking water can cause damage to brain, red blood cells, and kidneys, especially for young children and pregnant women. Copper in drinking water can cause stomach and intestinal distress, liver or kidney damage, and complications of Wilson's disease in genetically predisposed people. These are just a few of the contaminants that can be found in drinking water if not properly treated.
Federal regulation of water through the safe drinking water act and The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) has made the US have the cleanest water supplies in the world. It is critical for the federal government to watch over local authorities and make sure that drinking water regulations are being met.
Contaminants in water can cause serious problems for people like gastrointestinal diseases, Legionnaires Disease, and a substantial increase in the chance of cancer.
- article found on http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/index.html
Who is responsible for drinking water quality?
The Safe Drinking Water Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the responsibility for setting national drinking water standards that protect the health of the 250 million people who get their water from public water systems. Other people get their water from private wells which are not subject to Federal Regulations. Since 1974, EPA has set national safety standards for over 80 contaminants that may occur in drinking water.
While EPA and state governments set and enforce standards, local governments and private water suppliers have direct responsibility for the quality of the water that flows to your tap. Water systems test and treat their water, maintain the distribution systems that deliver water to consumers, and report on their water quality to the state. States and EPA provide technical assistance to water suppliers and can take legal action against systems that fail to provide water that meets state and EPA standards.
What are the health effects of contaminants in drinking water?
EPA has set standards for more than 80 contaminants that may occur in drinking water and pose a risk to human health. EPA sets these standards to protect the health of everybody, including vulnerable groups like children. The contaminants fall into two groups according to the health effects that they cause. Your water supplier will alert you through the media, mail, or other means if there is a potential acute or chronic health effect from compounds in the drinking water. You may want to contact the supplier for additional information specific to your area.
Acute effects occur within hours or days of the time that a person consumes a contaminant. People can suffer acute health effects from almost any contaminant if they are exposed to extraordinarily high levels (as in the case of a spill). In drinking water, microbes, such as bacteria and viruses, are the contaminants with the greatest chance of reaching levels high enough to cause acute health effects. Most people's bodies can fight off these microbial contaminants the way they fight off germs, and these acute contaminants typically don't have permanent effects. Nonetheless, when high enough levels occur, they can make people ill, and can be dangerous or deadly for a person whose immune system is already weak due to HIV/AIDS, chemotherapy, steroid use, or another reason.
Chronic effects occur after people consume a contaminant at levels over EPA's safety standards for many years. The drinking water contaminants that can have chronic effects are chemicals (such as disinfection by-products, solvents, and pesticides), radionuclides (such as radium), and minerals (such as arsenic). Examples of the chronic effects of drinking water contaminants are cancer, liver or kidney problems, or reproductive difficulties.
From the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Under the Act, DEP is authorized to assess and collect civil penalties, fines, and/or other fees for each violation. A penalty may be assessed whether or not the violation is willful or negligent. Figure 9 shows the number of penalty actions performed across the state has averaged approximately 28 per calendar year.
From the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: The total regulatory need is $45.1 billion, or only 16 percent of the total national need. While most of the total need is not driven by compliance with a particular regulation, properly maintaining a system’s infrastructure is not only economical in the long run, but also is protective of public health. These nonregulatory costs include routine installation, upgrade, and replacement of basic infrastructure and are borne by the system regardless of regulations. Exhibit ES-4: 20-Year Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Need (in billions of January 2003 dollars) The wiki will not allow the graph. Click on link and go to page 10. From: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/pdfs/2003/report_needssurvey_2003_es.pdf (Page 10)
Con: The public would be better served if states and local authorities had more control in regulations on water standards. Local governments may have a limited number of resources but they would be able to narrow in on specific problems and increase the well-being of the public. Federal regulation often neglects the more specific problems and spends huge sums of money on noexistant problems. In the past local government and private firms has done more for water quality then the federal government. Much of the improvement in water quality occurred before the federal government stepped in. While the need for some federal regulation is nesecary it will always be local governments who will be the most effecive in dealing with water standard problems.
Contaminants in water are never at a high enough risk to pose a cancer risk. The EPA overestimates the negative effects of chlorine, arsenic, and radon in the US water supply. If these levels were true we would all have helath problems.
-article found on http://cei.org/node/20914
Don’t we need more federal regulation to keep our drinking water safe?
Public health would be better served if states and localities had greater authority in setting drinking water standards because that would allow them to spend their limited resources in a way that maximizes public health and well-being. Currently, federal regulation often requires them to divert huge amounts of money to address insignificant risks, forcing them to neglect much larger risks.
History shows that local governments are better suited than the federal government to address drinking water quality. Local governments and private parties have contributed much more than the federal government to improved water quality. In fact, most progress in cleaning drinking water occurred before the federal government got involved. Local government and private firms built water infrastructure and developed and implemented water purification technology long before the federal involvement. As a result, waterborne-related deaths in the United States dropped from 75 to 100 per 100,000 people at the turn of the century to fewer than 0.1 deaths per 100,000 annually in 1950 because local governments and industry introduced chlorination in the 1880s. Do chemicals in my drinking water cause cancer?
The trace levels of chemicals present in U.S. drinking water systems are too low to pose any substantial cancer risk. In their landmark study on cancer, Scientists Richard Doll and Richard Peto noted “with the possible exception of asbestos in a few water supplies, we know of no established human carcinogen that is ever present in sufficient quantities in large U.S. water supplies to account for any material percentage of the total risk of cancer.” A key thing to remember is that it is “the dose that makes the poison.” Despite claims that a chemical causes cancer in rodents (which are give massive doses), that does not mean a low-level exposure poses any significant risk to humans. In fact, high doses of broccoli, carrots, and coffee cause cancer in rodents, but they are certainly safe and healthy to eat. Does the chlorine in my water support affect my health?
Chlorination of water supplies have proven to be one of the most important public health achievements of all time as it prevents a untold number of waterborne illnesses every year. Still some people say that we need to reduce chlorine use because it creates byproducts that could cause cancer. But EPA’s own rule for regulation of such byproducts admits that evidence is lacking to demonstrate such effects. Unfortunately, the regulations on chlorine byproducts could actually harm public health. Underscoring that concern, EPA’s own Science Advisory Board has warned: “A key concern is the possibility that chlorination … may be replaced by processes with poorly understood health impacts, both chemically and microbiologically.” Should I worry about arsenic levels in my water supply?
Arsenic in U.S. drinking water systems—even when levels exceed federal standards by many times over—do not reach levels where it could pose a health concern. Only populations that have been exposed to arsenic level that are hundreds of times higher than levels in U.S. water supplies for decades have suffered ill effect. At such massive, long-term exposures, arsenic can cause a type of skin cancer. Fortunately, there have been no such cases in the United States. What is radon and should I worry about getting cancer from radon in my drinking water?
Radon is a radioactive material released from the earth’s crust. Low-levels of radon can be found in drinking water, but the pose no significant public health risk. The only studies indicating that radon is a problem related to miners exposed to very high levels of radon, which they inhaled. Many of these miners also smoked and were exposed to a large array of other chemicals as well. There is no evidence of anyone ever getting ill from radon in drinking water. Meanwhile, there is some evidence that low-level radiation exposures can actually reduce cancer risks.
US Dept. of Environment
White House Environmental Policy
National Environment Policy Act
Environmental Protection Agencyhttp://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
Environmental Pessimism
Top Ten Environmental Policy Terms
Environmental Impact Statement- a statement needed to be written before any federal agency undertakes an activity that will “significantly” affect the quality of the human environment.
Acid Rain- Rain, snow, or dust particles that fall down to earth that are high in acidity. A source of acid rain comes from burning certain types of coal that have high amounts of sulfur. It can cause disastrous consequences by eliminating wild life in areas such as forests and lakes.
Command and control strategy-rule makers and rule enforcers know how to achieve the greatest environmental gain at the least cost.
Offsets- an environmental rule that a company in an area with polluted air can offset its own pollution by reducing pollution from another source in the area.
Bubble standard-the total amount of air pollution that can come from a given factory. A company is to decide which specific sources within that factory must be reduced and how to meet the bubble standard.
Pollution allowances- a reduction in pollution below that required by law that can be used to cover a future plant expansion or sold to another company whose pollution emissions are above the legal requirements.
Clean Air Act- legislation enacted by congress to control air pollution on a national level
Scientific uncertainty- experts either do not know or disagree about what is happening within a given topic and how to change it. Thus it is very difficult to come to a consensus as to what shall be done for a given situation.
Entrepreneurial politics- Mobilizing decision-makers act with strong, often emotional appeals in order to overcome the political advantages of the client groups that oppose a change.
Adversarial politics- cities and states fight with the federal government over what standards should apply where.
Work Cited
Wilson, James, and Dilulio, John Jr. American Government Institutions and Policies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
Issue:
Should there be more federal regulation on drinking water?
Interest Groups involved in the discussion of whether to have increased federal regulations on drinking water:
Clean Water Action: An organization of 1.2 million members working to empower people to take action to protect America's waters, build healthy communities and to make democracy work for everybody. They are in favor of stricter and tougher regulations by the federal government on drinking water.
Environmentalists, including Senator Russ Feingold, who want to keep rivers, streams, and other bodies of water clean would support increased federal regulation. Protected water sources provide a good living environment for wildlife and a good source of drinking water.
States, their Governors and Legislators: States are not in favor of increased federal regulation of drinking water. States have limited number of resources but they would be able to narrow in on specific problems and increase the well-being of the public. Federal regulation often neglects larger risks and spends huge sums of money on insignificant risks. In the past local government and private firms has done more for water quality then the federal government. Much of the improvement in water quality occurred before the federal government stepped in.
The water supply industry and its associations: The water supply industry is not in favor of increased federal regulations on drinking water. Stricter regulations might cause the industry to usher in some new, more expensive technologies and services. If there were more federal regulation, profit for this industry would go down as it would have to spend money to accommodate the new regulations.
Researchers, particularly those who have specialized in empirical research on the useful life of pipe: This group is in favor of increased federal regulation of drinking water. Increased regulations would cause differently engineered pipes to be designed. Researchers would have to conduct tests on the new types of pipes and their income and workload would increase.
Pro: The government needs to implement more regulations on drinking water to maintain the health of the public. The many contaminants found in water can be extremely hazardous if they are not severely reduced or eliminated completely. The federal government sets these levels and makes sure that local water supplies follow this mandate. Even so, local governments and private water suppliers have direct responsibility for the quality of the water that flows to your tap. The federal government needs to have more control and regulations over local water supplies so that Americans are protected from deadly chemicals.
The effects of arsenic in drinking water can include thickening and discoloration of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness in hands and feet; partial paralysis; and blindness. Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate. Lead in drinking water can cause damage to brain, red blood cells, and kidneys, especially for young children and pregnant women. Copper in drinking water can cause stomach and intestinal distress, liver or kidney damage, and complications of Wilson's disease in genetically predisposed people. These are just a few of the contaminants that can be found in drinking water if not properly treated.
Federal regulation of water through the safe drinking water act and The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) has made the US have the cleanest water supplies in the world. It is critical for the federal government to watch over local authorities and make sure that drinking water regulations are being met.
Contaminants in water can cause serious problems for people like gastrointestinal diseases, Legionnaires Disease, and a substantial increase in the chance of cancer.
- article found on http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/index.html
Who is responsible for drinking water quality?
The Safe Drinking Water Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the responsibility for setting national drinking water standards that protect the health of the 250 million people who get their water from public water systems. Other people get their water from private wells which are not subject to Federal Regulations. Since 1974, EPA has set national safety standards for over 80 contaminants that may occur in drinking water.
While EPA and state governments set and enforce standards, local governments and private water suppliers have direct responsibility for the quality of the water that flows to your tap. Water systems test and treat their water, maintain the distribution systems that deliver water to consumers, and report on their water quality to the state. States and EPA provide technical assistance to water suppliers and can take legal action against systems that fail to provide water that meets state and EPA standards.
What are the health effects of contaminants in drinking water?
EPA has set standards for more than 80 contaminants that may occur in drinking water and pose a risk to human health. EPA sets these standards to protect the health of everybody, including vulnerable groups like children. The contaminants fall into two groups according to the health effects that they cause. Your water supplier will alert you through the media, mail, or other means if there is a potential acute or chronic health effect from compounds in the drinking water. You may want to contact the supplier for additional information specific to your area.Acute effects occur within hours or days of the time that a person consumes a contaminant. People can suffer acute health effects from almost any contaminant if they are exposed to extraordinarily high levels (as in the case of a spill). In drinking water, microbes, such as bacteria and viruses, are the contaminants with the greatest chance of reaching levels high enough to cause acute health effects. Most people's bodies can fight off these microbial contaminants the way they fight off germs, and these acute contaminants typically don't have permanent effects. Nonetheless, when high enough levels occur, they can make people ill, and can be dangerous or deadly for a person whose immune system is already weak due to HIV/AIDS, chemotherapy, steroid use, or another reason.
Chronic effects occur after people consume a contaminant at levels over EPA's safety standards for many years. The drinking water contaminants that can have chronic effects are chemicals (such as disinfection by-products, solvents, and pesticides), radionuclides (such as radium), and minerals (such as arsenic). Examples of the chronic effects of drinking water contaminants are cancer, liver or kidney problems, or reproductive difficulties.
From the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Under the Act, DEP is authorized to assess and collect civil penalties, fines, and/or other fees for each violation. A penalty may be assessed whether or not the violation is willful or negligent. Figure 9 shows the number of penalty actions performed across the state has averaged approximately 28 per calendar year.
Source: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/cwp/view.asp?a=1450&q=512634
From the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment:
The total regulatory need is $45.1 billion, or only 16 percent of the total national need. While most of the total need is not driven by compliance with a particular regulation, properly maintaining a system’s infrastructure is not only economical in the long run, but also is protective of public health. These nonregulatory costs include routine installation, upgrade, and replacement of basic infrastructure and are borne by the system regardless of regulations.
Exhibit ES-4: 20-Year Regulatory and
Non-Regulatory Need
(in billions of January 2003 dollars)
The wiki will not allow the graph. Click on link and go to page 10.
From: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/pdfs/2003/report_needssurvey_2003_es.pdf (Page 10)
Con: The public would be better served if states and local authorities had more control in regulations on water standards. Local governments may have a limited number of resources but they would be able to narrow in on specific problems and increase the well-being of the public. Federal regulation often neglects the more specific problems and spends huge sums of money on noexistant problems. In the past local government and private firms has done more for water quality then the federal government. Much of the improvement in water quality occurred before the federal government stepped in. While the need for some federal regulation is nesecary it will always be local governments who will be the most effecive in dealing with water standard problems.
Contaminants in water are never at a high enough risk to pose a cancer risk. The EPA overestimates the negative effects of chlorine, arsenic, and radon in the US water supply. If these levels were true we would all have helath problems.
-article found on http://cei.org/node/20914
Don’t we need more federal regulation to keep our drinking water safe?
Public health would be better served if states and localities had greater authority in setting drinking water standards because that would allow them to spend their limited resources in a way that maximizes public health and well-being. Currently, federal regulation often requires them to divert huge amounts of money to address insignificant risks, forcing them to neglect much larger risks.
History shows that local governments are better suited than the federal government to address drinking water quality. Local governments and private parties have contributed much more than the federal government to improved water quality. In fact, most progress in cleaning drinking water occurred before the federal government got involved. Local government and private firms built water infrastructure and developed and implemented water purification technology long before the federal involvement. As a result, waterborne-related deaths in the United States dropped from 75 to 100 per 100,000 people at the turn of the century to fewer than 0.1 deaths per 100,000 annually in 1950 because local governments and industry introduced chlorination in the 1880s.
Do chemicals in my drinking water cause cancer?
The trace levels of chemicals present in U.S. drinking water systems are too low to pose any substantial cancer risk. In their landmark study on cancer, Scientists Richard Doll and Richard Peto noted “with the possible exception of asbestos in a few water supplies, we know of no established human carcinogen that is ever present in sufficient quantities in large U.S. water supplies to account for any material percentage of the total risk of cancer.” A key thing to remember is that it is “the dose that makes the poison.” Despite claims that a chemical causes cancer in rodents (which are give massive doses), that does not mean a low-level exposure poses any significant risk to humans. In fact, high doses of broccoli, carrots, and coffee cause cancer in rodents, but they are certainly safe and healthy to eat.
Does the chlorine in my water support affect my health?
Chlorination of water supplies have proven to be one of the most important public health achievements of all time as it prevents a untold number of waterborne illnesses every year. Still some people say that we need to reduce chlorine use because it creates byproducts that could cause cancer. But EPA’s own rule for regulation of such byproducts admits that evidence is lacking to demonstrate such effects. Unfortunately, the regulations on chlorine byproducts could actually harm public health. Underscoring that concern, EPA’s own Science Advisory Board has warned: “A key concern is the possibility that chlorination … may be replaced by processes with poorly understood health impacts, both chemically and microbiologically.”
Should I worry about arsenic levels in my water supply?
Arsenic in U.S. drinking water systems—even when levels exceed federal standards by many times over—do not reach levels where it could pose a health concern. Only populations that have been exposed to arsenic level that are hundreds of times higher than levels in U.S. water supplies for decades have suffered ill effect. At such massive, long-term exposures, arsenic can cause a type of skin cancer. Fortunately, there have been no such cases in the United States.
What is radon and should I worry about getting cancer from radon in my drinking water?
Radon is a radioactive material released from the earth’s crust. Low-levels of radon can be found in drinking water, but the pose no significant public health risk. The only studies indicating that radon is a problem related to miners exposed to very high levels of radon, which they inhaled. Many of these miners also smoked and were exposed to a large array of other chemicals as well. There is no evidence of anyone ever getting ill from radon in drinking water. Meanwhile, there is some evidence that low-level radiation exposures can actually reduce cancer risks.