FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W59777624> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W59777624 abstract "In 2003, the Vermont Water Resources Board held that a “suite of pollutants” from urban stormwater runoff into four Burlington-area brooks exceeded what the waters could handle. The decision marked the beginning of a saga that would reveal a groundbreaking legal strategy in fighting stormwater pollution. The situation in Vermont represents a small-scale example of the disastrous stormwater problem facing the United States - where substantial pollution from urban areas, storm sewers, and construction projects remain unregulated under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the Vermont litigation provides a framework that other citizen groups can use to enforce this provision of the Act. In June 2003, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), a New England environmental advocacy group, petitioned the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to recognize that stormwater discharges into these brooks required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act. The petition called on the state environmental agency to write national permits for discharges that the agency had already determined contributed to water quality standard violations in the brooks. The action spawned more than five years of litigation and culminated in the first time any court had squarely addressed the issue of whether states must exercise their residual designation authority (RDA) under the Clean Water Act once they find discharges “contribute” to water quality standard violations. In Vermont, they do have to exercise this authority once the facts are there to show the connection between the discharge and the water quality violation. The Vermont Environmental Court decided the CLF petition case correctly. Once agencies realize there are discharges that contribute to water quality standard violations, they should write NPDES permits. The Clean Water Act’s goal is to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into our waters, and we cannot do this by ignoring a substantial amount of the problem. For example, in Vermont, the Environmental Court found that the state’s stormwater program would hopefully contribute to solving the water quality problems at hand. However, the reality was that the program was far from fully implemented, and the state could not use it as a shield to guard it from fulfilling its RDA obligations. Comprehensive measures are ultimately necessary to eliminate stormwater pollution. In the interim, citizens should utilize strategies like RDA to control pollution. This article argues that Vermont got it right in finding that agencies must write NPDES permits once they find that point source stormwater discharges contribute to water quality standard violations. Citizen groups should take advantage of this decision and use the momentum to encourage a fresh look at stormwater that provides more action sooner. The article will act as a guide to other citizen groups and inform them what worked and what did not in the CLF litigation so that groups can use a similar strategy themselves. It also recognizes that RDA is only a temporary fix to the problem and land use regulation plays an important role in curing the stormwater problem. Finally, this note advocates widespread use of RDA on a national scale. Part I of this note provides an overview of the water quality problems Vermont faces due to storm water pollution. It also shows where Vermont sits on the national stage and what makes the problems in Vermont different from those in other parts of the country. Part II outlines the litigation surrounding the residual designation authority issue. It explains the cases in Vermont where CLF succeeded in forcing ANR to require individual permits for storm water discharges that contribute to violations of water quality standards. Part III argues that RDA is an effective way to protect against storm water pollution, but agencies should also use other tools, like land use law, to solve the problem. Part IV argues that RDA should be used and is an effective tool to require permits where established violations exist." @default.
• W59777624 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W59777624 creator A5009625489 @default.
• W59777624 date "2010-01-01" @default.
• W59777624 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W59777624 title "Residual Designation Authority and Stormwater Pollution: Forcing Agencies to Protect Our Waters" @default.
• W59777624 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1542078" @default.
• W59777624 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W59777624 type Work @default.
• W59777624 sameAs 59777624 @default.
• W59777624 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W59777624 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W59777624 hasAuthorship W59777624A5009625489 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C155512373 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C173051318 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C197115733 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C2777875673 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C2780797713 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C2992516717 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C49204034 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C50477045 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C521259446 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C524765639 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C526734887 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W59777624 hasConcept C91375879 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C107826830 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C11413529 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C127313418 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C144133560 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C155512373 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C173051318 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C18903297 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C197115733 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C2777875673 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C2780797713 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C2992516717 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C39432304 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C41008148 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C49204034 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C50477045 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C521259446 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C524765639 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C526734887 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C86803240 @default.
• W59777624 hasConceptScore W59777624C91375879 @default.
• W59777624 hasLocation W597776241 @default.
• W59777624 hasOpenAccess W59777624 @default.
• W59777624 hasPrimaryLocation W597776241 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W1512431631 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W2216476430 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W2269661401 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W2277299594 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W2281790107 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W2286072091 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W2358816496 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W2725996889 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W2730747136 @default.
• W59777624 hasRelatedWork W2598002447 @default.
• W59777624 isParatext "false" @default.
• W59777624 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W59777624 magId "59777624" @default.
• W59777624 workType "article" @default.