Econ Law Chp. 18

Federal regulation of the environment began about:

1970

What is a feature of the Clean Air Act?

Each state must develop a plan to implement the federal air standards.

Which of the following is not a non-point source of water pollution?

Emissions from paper mills

Which of the following is not a feature of the Clean Water Act?

It provides significant controls for pollution from farming and other run-off sources.

Which of the following is not a major pollutant subject to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

Mercury

Which statute requires detailed control of hazardous waste?

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Toxic pollutants are subject to:

best available technology.

To help enforce the Clean Air Act, in some cases besides EPA prosecution there may be:

citizen suits.

In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., where a paper mill dumped pollution into a waterway that ran through Whalen's property, the New York high court held that:

either the paper mill reduced its pollution so as not to bother Whalen or it could be shut down.

To comply with the Clean Water Act, businesses that discharge wastes into a waterway must:

obtain a discharge permit and meet the effluent limits set by EPA for each chemical.

The focus of the Clean Water Act is on controlling:

point sources of pollution.

Under the Clean Air Act, areas with air that meets federal quality standards are called:

prevention of significant deterioration areas.

The focus of the Endangered Species Act is on:

protecting habitat for endangered species.

The common law right used in most states that holds that people have the right to use water in reasonable amounts but must allow the water to flow downstream in usable form is called:

riparian water rights.

In Responsible Economic Development v. S.C. Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, where Wal-Mart received a stormwater permit from the Department for the handling of runoff from its property during rain storms, and Responsible challenged the appropriateness of the permit, the South Carolina high court held that:

the evidence was that the Department reviewed the relevant evidence and was justified in giving the permit.