Premium
Ground‐Water Quality Standards — Irrelevant a
Author(s) -
Rayner Frank A.
Publication year - 1979
Publication title -
groundwater
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.84
H-Index - 94
eISSN - 1745-6584
pISSN - 0017-467X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1979.tb03273.x
Subject(s) - water quality , quality (philosophy) , safe drinking water act , government (linguistics) , control (management) , usable , groundwater , land reclamation , business , legislation , resource (disambiguation) , pollution , enforcement , environmental planning , resource conservation and recovery act , environmental science , law , political science , engineering , waste management , computer science , geography , hazardous waste , philosophy , artificial intelligence , ecology , computer network , linguistics , archaeology , biology , epistemology , geotechnical engineering , world wide web
Proposals to establish national ground‐water quality standards appear to be premature, and redundant because of the geohydrologic and geochemical factors governing the occurrence and development of ground water. Although it can be reasoned that there is no “good time” to establish additional governmental standards (and the resultant additional governmental regulations), it can also be strongly argued that now is a “bad time” to consider establishment of the proposed standards. First, a present mood of the general public is away from more governmental involvement in the business and private sectors, and a rebellion against the increasing cost of government. Second, the applicability and workability of present Federal (and some State) laws that could be used to adequately protect ground‐water quality, have yet to be implemented or otherwise sufficiently tested. The full force and effect of the Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92‐500 with amendments) has yet to be implemented, and Congress is still considering its “oversights” in their drafting of same. The Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93‐523), particularly those sections designed or usable to protect ground‐water quality, have yet to be tested by the EPA. Like PL 92‐500, the deadline for implementation of parts of PL 93‐523 has long since passed. And the far‐reaching effects on ground‐water quality protection that three other federal laws‐the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (PL 94‐580); the Toxic Substances Control Act (PL 94‐469); and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (PL 95‐87)—are totally unknown, since the procedures for full implementation of these acts have yet to be developed. Therefore, it appears that establishing a new ground‐water quality control act prior to testing existing law and thereby learning from their flaws or shortcomings, could result in unnecessary proliferation of law without its reasonable testing. This appears to be good time to interrupt the geometric progression that tends to spawn additional laws when laws are developed ahead of their established need. Equitable and workable ground‐water quality protection could be fostered through the enactment of the long overdue requirements for the integration of surface‐and ground‐water development and management structures. This integration would decrease inefficiency of use of these water resources—which are actually inseparable in identity to their users, the American taxpayers.