Latest news with #CleanWaterActof1972
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
City dwellers stunned by surprising visitors in bustling waterway: 'They spent the entire day right there'
Valentine's Day graced New Yorkers with an unusual but delightful sight in the East River: dolphins, as The Guardian reported. A pair of them presented a good omen for seeing more marine animals this spring and summer. Drivers during their morning commutes on Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive reported seeing a pair of short-beaked dolphins — a species distinguished by yellowish hourglass markings along their sides. They swam that path until Feb. 11. When Chris St Lawrence, researcher and spokesperson for Gotham Whale, heard about the dolphins, he checked things out for himself. "I went out there and I was able to see this pair of dolphins, and they spent the entire day right there," he told The Guardian. So, why were they so close to shore? According to Maxine Montello, executive director of the New York Marine Rescue Center, they're likely "eating smaller schooling fish in that area." Another uncommon recent visitor in the area was a humpback whale in November. Understandably, some people were worried that these lovable creatures were at risk in polluted waters. After all, the Roosevelt Island Daily News noted aquatic life suffocated from depleted oxygen levels after sewage flowed unchecked into the river during the Industrial Revolution. The massive waste led to the Clean Water Act of 1972, which paved the way for the river to be "the cleanest it's been in a century." That doesn't mean it is worry-free. Mike Dulong, senior attorney for the New York water quality advocacy group Riverkeeper, told City & State New York that "21 billion gallons of this combined sewage end up in the city's waterways annually" from heavy rainfall runoff. That's why ongoing conservation efforts by governments and personal responsibility by individuals matter. Thanks to reduced water consumption, Lake Powell reached a three-year water-level high after a dangerous low in 2023. Kazakhstan's North Aral Sea has doubled in size since 2008 after cooperation between the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation and the World Bank. An Ohio Department of Natural Resources dam removal project will improve water quality and aquatic biodiversity. Monitoring waterways helps keep drinking water free from harmful microplastics and give space for marine life to safely swim and forage for fish. As St Lawrence said, "We are near an ocean that's very much alive." Do you worry about air pollution in and around your home? Yes — always Yes — often Yes — sometimes No — never Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
RJN CELEBRATES 50 YEARS WITH A $50,000 DONATION
The funds will be used to further ecological restoration of our Nation's waterways. DOWNERS GROVE, Ill., April 1, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- RJN Group, Inc. commemorates a half-century of water infrastructure innovation. This journey began with founder Richard J. Nogaj's profound commitment to the environment, inspired by the landmark Clean Water Act of 1972. Cultivating a legacy of water industry engineering and environmental stewardship at RJN that would span half a century. In celebration of reaching the milestone of providing water infrastructure solutions for 50 years, RJN Group Inc., through its philanthropic arm, RJN Foundation, hit another milestone in 2025. RJN Foundation has presented American Rivers, Inc. with a $50,000 grant to support the removal of the Cypress Branch Dam in Millington, MD. RJN Foundation President Florence Nogaj said this is the largest single grant the foundation has ever awarded. "The RJN Foundation's mission is to improve the quality of life for all people, especially children," Nogaj said. "Removing the Cypress Dam fits our mission perfectly, as it will improve public safety, restore ecosystems, and improve water quality for all." The removal of the dam at Cypress Branch State Park near Millington, Maryland, will breathe new life into the river, restoring the natural flow of Cypress Branch and reviving the surrounding habitat. This project will reconnect fish to their historic migratory routes and enhance flood resiliency—reducing downstream flood risks and making the area safer for local communities. By letting the river run free, we're not just removing a barrier; we're creating a healthier, more vibrant ecosystem that benefits both people and wildlife. "It is truly incredible how fast rivers restored to their natural, free-flowing state can bounce back," said Tom Kiernan, president and CEO of American Rivers. "This gift will make an immediate impact on the communities surrounding the Cypress Dam and we appreciate the RJN Foundation for partnering with us and its commitment to rivers." Operating for more than 25 years, the RJN Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, promotes and encourages employee stewardship in communities surrounding RJN office locations. Annual grants include both long-term grantees and new organizations. Civil and environmental undergraduate scholarships are awarded to colleges and universities nationwide, and each student is selected by the institution of higher learning. "To date, the foundation has provided over $1 million across more than 700 grant awards since its inception," Nogaj noted. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE RJN Group Inc. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court reins in EPA power to police water pollution discharge
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency in a ruling on Tuesday involving a wastewater treatment facility owned by the city of San Francisco that could make it harder for regulators to police water pollution. The justices, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority under a landmark anti-pollution law by including vague restrictions in a permit issued for the wastewater treatment facility, which empties into the Pacific Ocean. The city had sued to challenge the EPA restrictions. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, reversed a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld the permit. Alito wrote that the EPA exceeded its powers under the landmark Clean Water Act of 1972 by imposing undefined requirements on permit-holders related to water quality standards in the receiving body of water. "This case involves provisions that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing; rather, they make a permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants," Alito wrote. "When a permit contains such requirements, a permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards," Alito added. Water quality standards are devised by states and subject to federal approval. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's three liberal members. "EPA is required to issue the limitations necessary to ensure that the water quality standards are met," Barrett wrote. "So taking a tool away from EPA may make it harder for the agency to issue the permits that municipalities and businesses need in order for their discharges to be lawful." The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has limited the EPA's reach in recent years as part of a series of rulings curbing the power federal regulatory agencies.
Reuters
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court reins in EPA power to police water pollution discharge
WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency in a ruling on Tuesday involving a wastewater treatment facility owned by the city of San Francisco that could make it harder for regulators to police water pollution. The justices, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority under a landmark anti-pollution law by including vague restrictions in a permit issued for the wastewater treatment facility, which empties into the Pacific Ocean. The city had sued to challenge the EPA restrictions. The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, reversed a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld the permit. Alito wrote that the EPA exceeded its powers under the landmark Clean Water Act of 1972 by imposing undefined requirements on permit-holders related to water quality standards in the receiving body of water. "This case involves provisions that do not spell out what a permittee must do or refrain from doing; rather, they make a permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants," Alito wrote. "When a permit contains such requirements, a permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards," Alito added. Water quality standards are devised by states and subject to federal approval. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's three liberal members. "EPA is required to issue the limitations necessary to ensure that the water quality standards are met," Barrett wrote. "So taking a tool away from EPA may make it harder for the agency to issue the permits that municipalities and businesses need in order for their discharges to be lawful." The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has limited the EPA's reach in recent years as part of a series of rulings curbing the power federal regulatory agencies.
New York Times
04-03-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Supreme Court Deals Blow to E.P.A. in Dispute Over Federal Water Rules
The Supreme Court sided with San Francisco on Tuesday in a challenge to water quality regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in a ruling that could have sweeping implications for the agency's ability to limit offshore pollution. The 5-to-4 decision dealt another blow to the agency, which has recently sustained several losses before the court over its efforts to protect the environment. The case was notable because it created unusual alliances. Liberal San Francisco found itself on the same side as mining and petroleum trade groups like the National Mining Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in opposing the E.P.A. The dispute fundamentally focused on human waste and how San Francisco disposes of it. The question before the court was whether the Clean Water Act of 1972 allowed the E.P.A. to impose prohibitions on wastewater released into the Pacific Ocean and to penalize the city for violating them. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the E.P.A. was entitled to impose specific requirements to prevent pollution but not to make polluters responsible whenever water quality generally falls below the agency's standards. 'When a permit contains such requirements,' he wrote, 'a permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards.' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion, and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined most of it. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by the court's three-member liberal wing — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Barrett said the agency was entitled to supplement specific requirements for water discharge with more general standards based on changes to water quality. The need for the second kind of regulation, she wrote, quoting from the government's lawsuit, 'is on display in this case — discharges from components of San Francisco's sewer system have allegedly led to serious breaches of the water quality standards, such as 'discoloration, scum and floating material, including toilet paper, in Mission Creek.'' Justice Barrett added that polluters can file targeted challenges to rules if they believe them to be unfair. But 'a statutory rewrite' was not warranted, she wrote. In the lead-up to the October oral argument, San Francisco officials had pushed back on the notion that they were challenging the federal government's ability to regulate the environment. They said they just wanted clarity on the rule for the city's wastewater permit so that the city could ensure it complied with the Clean Water Act, they said. The lawyer for San Francisco had argued that city officials did not have clear guidance on how to comply with the Clean Water Act and had been 'exposed to crushing criminal and civil penalties even when it otherwise complies with its 300-page permit.'
