Clean Water Act-Steps for a Better Future

47). The Bush Administration ne'er submitted a proposal on clean water, and Congress has shown teentsy enthusiasm for dealing with the massive lawmaking. In 1992, the only celebrated bill, a proposal from Senator Max Baucus (Democrat--Montana) was stopped at the mission level because the wetland controversy.

Today, the prospects for the wanton Water Act seem uncertain. only three committees in Congress with jurisdiction over the clean Water Act have newfound chairs. In addition, separate positions at the EPA and Interior Department are newly filled--meaning that the finis makers will have to familiarize themselves with the issues. In light of this, many analysts believe it is doubtful that new clean water legislation will be enacted before 1995. Others, however, believe, in view of new legislation proposed by Representative Sam Coopersmith (Democrat--Arizona), and Senator Max Baucus (Democrat--Montana) and Senator tush Chafee (Republican--Rhode Island), that a revision will happen sooner (Yamane, 1993, p. 5; Kocheisen, 1993, p. 1).

When President Clinton does sign the next Clean Water Act, he will most likely be approving a variation of the current law and non a major(ip) change in policy (Cohan, 1993, p. 48). While the regulatory bank note of the law may not change much, it could expand to entangle wetlands and groundwater.

While Congress considers new areas to include in the Clean Water Act, i

According to Rebecca Shriner, a policy analyst for the National Wildlife Federation in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the toll of not cleaning up the Great Lakes is more than expensive--since the health of the people of that region is at stake. This includes the $1 billion sports look for industry in that area. She also criticized variations among call forth laws that allow a company or city in one state to discharge more pollution in the Great Lakes than those in an some other.

Knight, K. (1993, September). Gently down the stream? Environmental Magazine, pp. 20-21.

Cohan, P. (1993, March). Whither water? American City & Country, pp. 47-48, 51-52, 54.

The National Association of Towns and Townships would like to see the bring program revised so that it earmarks special grants for small, economically unhappy communities. Currently, most lend rates are too richly for small and rural communities, according to Hamilton Brown, a water fibre specialist (Cohan, 1993, p. 48). In addition, these smaller jurisdictions have more stir up qualifying for federal bills because of restrictions on contracting and other areas.

The National League of Cities has asked Congress to restore the grant bread and butter that was part of the pre-1987 legislation. In addition, cities want Congress to make that money available for all Clean Water Act requirements, not just secondary treatment. Local governments title of respect that they will not be able to meet the requirements of clean water laws without more federal funding. States that want to maintain control of the program claim that grants undermine clean water programs. Instead of borrowing money to pay for wastewater treatment, localities delay projects with the hope of landing a federal grant, according to Savage. Savage also stated that no community is going to take out a loan when there is a chance of getting an 80 share grant.

Yamane, S. (1993, 24 May). Congressman says clean water is top precedence in House unit. Nation's Cities W
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.