A new report, designed to inform rulemaking on a controversial rule being developed by the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), strengthens the agencies’ position.
The annual State of the Union address was met with the typical Monday-morning quarterbacking from all sides, and while I have no interest in parsing President Obama’s performance, his strong statement on climate change is worth noting. What does it mean for water and wastewater professionals?
The answer to the question “How bad could it be?” is within your grasp, compliments of the U.S. EPA.
To celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the U.S. EPA organized a Twitter chat (#safetodrink) as an open forum for questions and answers on SDWA issues, or whatever else popped up. Here's how it unfolded.
“We have analytical instruments that can see things in astronomically small numbers, but are we looking for the right things?”
Despite being shorthanded and missing goals, the EPA hasn’t slowed its ambition. In fact, the agency is taking on more responsibilities.
The president of the Association of Clean Water Agencies shares his thoughts on the controversial “Waters of the United States” rule and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA).
What can be done to combat the risk-adverse nature of both the regulators and the technology purveyors?
Excess nutrients, blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), and cyanotoxins have long been a problem for wastewater treatment plants — many states regulate nutrient levels in discharged water — but now drinking water plants are being eyed for regulation as well.
Last week the House of Representatives approved a bill to block the proposed “Waters of the United States” rule, which would expand the U.S. EPA’s authority to include many streams and wetlands that currently go unregulated under the Clean Water Act. Has the EPA gone too far, or are they just doing what is necessary to protect and enhance water quality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|