In the July 7th letter to Johnson, chairmen Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee credit an internal EPA memo, which was given to them by activist group Greenpeace, for leading them to explore the EPA’s inadequate enforcement of the Clean Water Act.

The memorandum, which was sent on Mar. 4, 2008 from Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to Benjamin Grumbles, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water, points out the conflicting ideals of the 1972 Clean Water Act and the 2006 U.S. Supremem Court decision Rapanos v. United States.

While the Act protects wetlands from urban development for water conservation, the court ruling challenges water protection provisions and upholds individual’s rights to build over wetlands.

According to Nakayama’s memo, the fundamental discord between the federal law and Supreme Court decision has led to confusion about federal wetlands protections which has resulted in the agency’s “conscious decision not to pursue enforcement of 300 Clean Water Act violations because of the jurisdictional uncertainty.”

In a Washington Post article printed Tuesday, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar responded to the congressional inquiry. “We will be reviewing the new request and will work with the chairmen to provide information on our enforcement program,” Shradar was quoted.

Part of a series of pivitol environmental laws passed in the 1970s, the Clean Water Act was a monumental step forward for the environmental movement and surface water protection in the United States. The recent Rapanos v. United States ruling, however, overturned earlier decisions that stopped two seperate developers from building on their wetland properties due to environmental regulations connected to the CWA.

In the end, the court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of development and left the CWA in limbo.

Photo: EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has raised numerous objections to the permit, which was blocked on October 1. One concern is that the permit may not sufficiently limit chromium, cadmium, silver, cyanide and other chemicals to meet water quality standards for Indiana.

This is the second uproar in recent months about pollutants in Lake Michigan after BP was issued a permit for its $3 billion expansion of the Whitting, IN refinery. This expansion would allow the refinery to handle large quantities of Alberta Tar Sands crude, and comes with a high environmental price tag for Lake Michigan, such as a 54% increase in ammonia and 35% increase in sludge particles being released. This permit was the first to be issued in years that would increase the amount of pollution that a company is allowed to emit into Lake Michigan by finding a loophole in the Clean Water Act.

Chicagoans were particularly alarmed by these plans because their drinking water intake is located just a few miles from the Whiting refinery discharge. Many area residents responded by signing petitions, participating in demonstrations and a boycotting BP products. The message was heard loud and clear. The company later announced that it would not increase discharge into the lake, and would investigate pollution control technologies.

Despite this announcement, the permit remains on the books and could set a lower standard for future discharge permits. This series of events does, however, demonstrate the influence that private citizens and politicians can have over the actions of corporations when government standards seem to be satisfactory. Recent threats to the water quality of Lake Michigan serve as a reminder of the importance of the lake, which is the largest freshwater lake in the United States.

Chicago Tribune: Indiana Giving Lake Polluter a Break

Also on GO:

Eco-Effective Decisions: Stick to the Claims in Your Ad Campaign. Who’s Not? British Petroleum & the EPA.