Facts: Prosecution for acts that affect the environment received little attention until recently. However. as governments have become more concerned with the protection of the quality of water, land, and air, regulations and laws have increased. While laws containing overlapping civil, criminal, and administrative penalty provisions have originated in both the federal and legislatures, the federal government has taken the lead in controlling acts relating to the environment. In fact. in the last 40 years, environmental laws have increased in number, length, and complexity.
1. The Clean Air Act (CAA)
A) The Clean Air Act (CAA) imposes penalties on those who knowingly violate federal or state regulations designed to achieve ambient air quality standards. This is considered a federal enforcement for the fact that air pollution often crossed state lines and pollution would exist in two states at a time. The EPA prescribed national air quality is set for states to follow although the state is free to set stricter guidelines. A violation of the CAA comes when a state source emits more pollution than aloud by regulation.
2. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
A) The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was designed to regulate levels of harmful contaminants in public water systems and the underground injections of contaminants into ground water that supplies public drinking water. Again the EPA establishes the regulations for the SDWA and failure to comply with the regulations could lead to both civil and criminal penalties. Although the EPA sets the regulation the state may produce their own program of regulations and remain the lead authority in the matter, if the EPA approves such program.
3. Clean Water Act (CWA)
A) The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nations waters by minimizing the effects of water pollution. Federal, state, and local authorities are authorized to establish programs that prohibit or regulate the discharge of pollutants into the water of the United States. Criminal penalties may be assessed against any "person" who fails to comply with the statutory requirements of the CWA. The Act establishes four levels of criminal penalties all depending on whether a violation was negligent, knowing, involved knowing endangerment, or involved knowing falsification of information or tampering with monitoring equipment.
4. Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)
A) To further protect the environment, congress enacted the Toxic Substance Control Act. The purpose of the act is to prevent toxic substances in commerce from presenting an "unreasonable risk of injury to health of the environment," and to stem the tide of chemical substances and mixtures considered "imminent hazards." The EPA is authorized to regulate testing, remanufacturing clearance, manufacturing, and distribution of toxic substances. However the act also tells authorities not to impede on technological innovation.
5. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
A) The RCRA establishes a detailed scheme of federal regulation of all wastes, including hazardous wastes. It sets standards that govern the generation, treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. The objective of the act is to promote the protection of health and the environment and to conserve valuable material and energy resources by training and establishing practices as enumerated in the act. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who knowingly treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste without a permit, or transport hazardous waste to a facility lacking a permit.
6. Must the government prove the defendant have knowledge of the provisions of the clean water act?
A) "The instructions further advised the jury that the government was not required to prove that the defendant knew the acts violated the permit or the Clean Water Act. On appeal, the defendant argued that the government must prove that he knew his conduct violated the permit or the Clean Water Act. The circuit court disagreed with the defendant, holding that the government is only required to prove knowledge of the underlying conduct, not knowledge of the law." (585)