• Application of Treatment Technology.  Right now S. 1578’s final deadline for ships to install treatment technology is 2015.  There are good indications, however, that the bill will be amended and the deadline moved up to 2012, although it isn’t yet confirmed.
• Feasibility Review.  S. 1578 requires ships to install the best treatment technology available by the bill’s deadlines, even if it doesn’t meet the tough treatment standards that are spelled out.  Although headed in the right direction, this provision needs to be amended to ensure that a firm deadline is established so ships ultimately meet the toughest standards outlined in the bill.
• Preemption.  Legislation must not prevent states from taking action to protect their waters from invasive species or preempt the Clean Water Act.  A national standard is necessary.  However, states are best positioned to recognize those areas where federal regulations are inadequate or that may need special attention.  While implementation of a strong national standard will alleviate the need for states to take further action, states must also be allowed to provide greater protections for their waters.

Everything You Wanted to Know About the Ballast Water Management Act of 2007 (S. 1578)

Waterkeeper Alliance’s Water Enforcement Bulletin (Winter 2007)
www.waterkeeper.org
Waterkeeper Alliance’s Water Enforcement Bulletin (WEB) provides an overview of recent legislative activity, proposed and final regulatory changes to the Clean Water Act and other federal statutes, recent developments in case law and other governmental actions, such as federal issuances of Guidance and Policy Directives, all of which impact clean water protection.

Enforcement Bulletin-Waterkeeper-Winter 2007

Troubled Waters: An Analysis of Clean Water Act Compliance
http://www.uspirg.org/uploads/iN/ZM/iNZM2tGz4x7smwVULhTpow/troubledwaters06.pdf
In October 2006, the U.S. PIRG Education Fund released this report regarding CWA enforcement. Using information provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, this report analyzes all major facilitiesa violating their Clean Water Act permits between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004, reveals the type of pollutants they are discharging into our waterways, and details the extent to which these facilities are exceeding their permit levels.

Assessing State Enforcement: Too Many Claims, Too Little Data
http://www.rffund.org/eip/docs/AssessingStateEnforcement.pdf
Created by the Environmental Integrity Project, this report focuses on how difficult it is for the public and state agency personnel to obtain basic data on state enforcement actions that address significant violations of federal environmental law. (April 2003)

In Gross Violation: How Polluters are Flooding America's Waterways with Toxic Chemicals
http://www.pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=8258
A recent U.S. PIRG report found that more than 81 percent of U.S. polluters exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits at least once in the study's three-year period; the average violation was ten times the legal limit. (October 2002)

EPA Enforcement of Criminal Violation from 1991-2002
http://www.peer.org/EPA/EPA_criminal_referrals_graphs.htm
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) releases EPA Enforcement of Criminal Violation from 1991-2002.  Their press release says EPA case referrals for Clean Water Act violations dropped 53 percent in President Bush's first year in office. 

Permit to Pollute
http://uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=7545&id3=USPIRG&
U.S. PIRG releases their annual report on Clean Water Act enforcement.

Clean Water Enforcement and Compliance Improvement Act of 2002
http://cleanwaternetwork.org/docs/issues/enforcement/shortpallonesumm.pdf
The Clean Water Enforcement and Compliance Improvement Act of 2002 would clarify and strengthen existing enforcement of the Clean Water Act in several ways.  The bill would strengthen the polluter pays principle and requires EPA to recover, at a minimum, the violator's economic benefit.  It increases EPA’s authority to obtain information from regulated parties, expands the public's access to monitoring and compliance information, and allows EPA to deny permits to "bad actors".  The bill reverses bad decisions by Congress and the courts by waiving the immunity of federal facilities with respect to environmental requirements and over-ruling a court decision that said citizen plaintiffs cannot sue if a case only involves  "wholly past" violations.