Civil Enforcement

The goal of enforcing the environmental laws and their requirements is to improve the environment in which we live to assure that it is not further degraded, and to protect public health. The measures of success may be considered through looking at several factors, such as the number of facilities where enforcement actions have taken place, the reduction of pollutants released into the environment, the number of environmental improvement projects imposed, the penalties collected, and so on. We are continually working to improve our performance measures.

Beneficial Human Health and Environmental Results from Enforcement Actions and Activities

Some examples of positive environmental results and improvements achieved through settlements in water enforcement actions are as follows:

• New York City -- This consent decree will require the City to select a site to build a water filtration plant for the Croton watershed. The decree protects the health of the more than 1 million people who drink water supplied by the Croton system. The City will also spend at least $2 million on projects to enhance watershed protection.
  
  
• Phoenix, Arizona -- This joint consent decree with the State addressed the city's process of only monitoring certain groundwater wells and not others for the Phase II/V Rule; $350,000 cash penalty plus $1,250,000 in supplemental environmental projects to benefit the environment were obtained under the settlement.
  
  
• Tafton, Pennsylvania -- This joint consent decree with the State addressed the abandonment of this water system by private owners; $200,000 cash penalty, facility improvements and sale of the facility were obtained in the settlement.
  
  
• Alisal, California -- In this ongoing civil judicial action, the court made several favorable rulings to EPA, including one regarding the personal liability of the owners/operators.
  
  

Section 1431-- Emergency Powers Section -- There have been 29 administrative orders issued against public water systems over the past five years. Below are some successes under the Section 1431:

• Region IV's animal feeding operations (AFO) initiative, under SDWA Section 1431: The Region addressed the impact of animal feed operations on nearby source waters used for drinking water.
  
  
• Lead abatement effort in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania schools: Using the possibility of an administrative emergency action under Section 1431, the Region was able to persuade the city's Health Department to issue an order to the city's school system to address the high lead levels in the drinking water at Philadelphia schools.
  
  
• Vinyl chloride abatement effort in Doniphan County, Kansas: In this action, the Region's enforcement efforts resulted in State legislature support to fund the replacement of many miles of vinyl chloride piping.
  
  
• Zelionople, Pennsylvania: Unpermitted nitrate discharges from AK Steel caused an impact on downstream drinking water sources in the town.
  

Top of page