40 Years After The Clean Water Act, America's Water Is As Dirty As Ever

[MachineGhost]

The ineffectiveness calls into question why the federal government has spent billions of dollars enforcing the Clean Water Act with the EPA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clea ... ion-2012-7

[Pointedstick]

Clearly they just didn't have enough money! If we just double their funding, I'm sure things will magically fall into place. And if that doesn't work, better quadruple it. Don't bother to think, just spend!

Okay, I'm done, I promise.

[WildAboutHarry]

Huh?

First, not every water body in the US was a crap hole in the late 1960s.  So a comparison of then water quality with now water quality showing fishable conditions and no change is a good thing!

Second, some rivers used to catch fire.  Lake Erie was practically dead.  Etc. Etc.

The Clean Water Act has done a great job in identifying and regulating large-scale pollution discharges into rivers, harbors, lakes, etc.  As implemented today, however, much of Clean Water Act regulation (as implemented by the executive branch, not congress) is a tremendous over-reach, practically regulating the rain that falls on your roof.  And the Supreme Court has made several rulings limiting the implementation of this act in recent years.

Not perfect by any means, but not a complete waste of time/money either.

[MediumTex]

What would the free market solution be to a company that mines coal by removing the tops of mountains and leaves behind a big pile of toxic mining by-products that slowly work their way into the local water supply and air?

I think that is sort of the issue that West Virginia is struggling with, even with the Clean Water Act.

[Pointedstick]

What would the free market solution be to a company that mines coal by removing the tops of mountains and leaves behind a big pile of toxic mining by-products that slowly work their way into the local water supply and air?

I think that is sort of the issue that West Virginia is struggling with, even with the Clean Water Act.

The free market solution would be the owner of the mountain, aquifer, and airspace suing for trespass, littering, pollution, etc. Most pollution is actually a case of the local, state, or federal government permitting private businesses to pollute government-owned land or air. Ever wonder why "public" land is polluted, but Exxon Mobil has never dumped toxic waste on your front yard, in front of a church, or in the center of the nearest shopping mall parking lot? Because these properties are owned by people with strong interests in not seeing their land despoiled. Governments have no such interest because they make no profit from their land and sell no services involving that land. So what do they care of a bunch of wilderness gets polluted, so long as the polluters keep paying their taxes on time and voters don't care enough to boot them out over it? These big anti-pollution laws are yet more examples of the government trying to clean up their own messes by infringing on everyone else's liberties. If all the "public" land were privately owned, I think you'd see the owners not taking too kindly to businesses attempting to dump their externalities.

[MediumTex]

What would the free market solution be to a company that mines coal by removing the tops of mountains and leaves behind a big pile of toxic mining by-products that slowly work their way into the local water supply and air?

I think that is sort of the issue that West Virginia is struggling with, even with the Clean Water Act.

The free market solution would be the owner of the mountain, aquifer, and airspace suing for trespass, littering, pollution, etc. Most pollution is actually a case of the local, state, or federal government permitting private businesses to pollute government-owned land or air. Ever wonder why "public" land is polluted, but Exxon Mobil has never dumped toxic waste on your front yard, in front of a church, or in the center of the nearest shopping mall parking lot? Because these properties are owned by people with strong interests in not seeing their land despoiled. Governments have no such interest because they make no profit from their land and sell no services involving that land. So what do they care of a bunch of wilderness gets polluted, so long as the polluters keep paying their taxes on time and voters don't care enough to boot them out over it? These big anti-pollution laws are yet more examples of the government trying to clean up their own messes by infringing on everyone else's liberties. If all the "public" land were privately owned, I think you'd see the owners not taking too kindly to businesses attempting to dump their externalities.

So more avenues for the downstream communities to sue the mining companies would be a possible solution?

[Pointedstick]

So more avenues for the downstream communities to sue the mining companies would be a possible solution?

Absolutely. And not only the local government, but every property owner who's negatively affected. I assume from your example that a river is involved, yes? The problem could be prevented from even reaching the community by the river's owner objecting the moment that pollution hits it.

[MachineGhost]

What would the free market solution be to a company that mines coal by removing the tops of mountains and leaves behind a big pile of toxic mining by-products that slowly work their way into the local water supply and air?

I think that is sort of the issue that West Virginia is struggling with, even with the Clean Water Act.

The only effective solution is to allow private property rights, but to do so without involving cowboy capitalism from privatization, will require environmental trusts.  There are far too many progressives that would be horrified by free market solutions, so environmental trusts are an appealing compromise.

I believe the Supreme Court struck down the protective mechanism of "free market" litigation in the 1800's that truly made the tragedy of the so-called tragedy of the commons, a tragedy, rather than a later theory based on historical misrepresentation.  The case or cases was one of the very earliest examples of state capitalism.

[WildAboutHarry]

An early market-driven solution to the clean water problem...

CARNEHAN: Have the Bashkais any enemies to speak of?

One of their Chiefs answers.

BILLY FISH: Oh, yes, enemies all around. The Bhar-doks, the Shus,the Ghandaras, the Khawaks…

He points to some fortress-like walls in the distance.

BILLY FISH: Bhar-doks people all coming out and pissing downstream on Bashkai people when go to bathe…

DRAVOT: Shocking!

CARNEHAN: We’ll smite ‘em down and grind ‘em into the earth!

[moda0306]

How does one achieve preponderance of evidence showing that landowner A wronged Landowner B?  I think there are complexities to environmental externalities that simply will not be solved by private sector only legal actions.  Also, what about things such as drain tiling farm land?  Further, if our government isn't legitimate or competent enough to do what it currently does, where do they get the authority to sell land that's not even legitimately theirs, and do it in a way that doesn't simply give more wealth to those with it all already?

Another example of how turning natural resources into private property is as much a construct of government as it is of individualism and liberty... simply engineering a solution to the Tragedy of Commons (which still ends up manifesting itself, though in much different forms).  I find the Ron Paul "sue thy neighbor" solution to every environmental problem to be asinine, especially as we get into more complex problems such as global warming. I've never heard anything plausable that would show me that it would work.  Addressing externalities, IMO, is definitely a function of government... and not simply by issuing more deeds to resources that aren't anyone's to own in any natural sense. 

We may still have water problems today, but our rivers aren't starting on fire, AFAIK.  If the gov't needs more of something, it's probably regulatory power to limit pollutants and land use regulations to prevent runoff, not necessarily that much money (though that might be the case, too).