Pros And Cons Of Cooperative Federalism

A specific federal law, which demonstrates the assignment of duties from a federal law to individual states and reliance in “cooperative federalism” is the Clean Water Act of 1987. Underlined under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq), the purpose of the clean water act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters …” The essence of this act, “to restore and to maintain” focuses on the elimination of pollutants and waste harmful to the natural environment and the health of the public. Integrity stresses on a national level of moral righteousness, nationalism, and what must be done to uphold the foundations of a country’s nature wildlife. In particular, the division

For instance, recovery and interstate commerce permit allow scientists to research on a particular species. This allows for the collection of data to better understand the selected species and what can be done to aid in its current conditions and population recovery. Incidental take permits, in particular, can be viewed negatively, but it is to note the effects of such activities are minimized and mitigated to the fullest extent, and compensation is typically included. Enhancement of survival permits pose an immediate benefit to the species through conservational techniques. Additional, as outlined in the article, The Endangered Species Act: The Statute and the Regulations, it is quite difficult to obtain a permit in the first place without any sort of immense justification for such activities. The deficiencies to this specific permit is an evident loophole. It is quite contradictory for an act to stress so much on the protection and conservation of a species, but allow an exception which may affect the livelihood of a species. Even though there is a strict regulation to protect endangered species, there is always a possibility of actions which may harm a species in the near

For instance, the original intentions for the 404 permit program is the equal utilization of the three steps in avoidance, minimization, and compensation. The definition of compensation is to offset the loss of natural wetlands to environmental damages. A summarized version of how NEPA or the National Environmental Policy Act defines a section of mitigation to be “compensation through replace and provide of substitute resources to a specific environment”. This would mean a restoration and preservation of wetland resources to previous or improved levels. Under Guideline Section 230.10, compensation is the “application of ecological restoration to reduce the severity of the environmental impact”, as stated more specifically under Section(s) 230.75(d) and 230.10 (b) and (c). However, since the enactment of this act, applicants tend to focus on the compensation aspect of the program, rather than explore the avoidance and minimization requirements. Parties typically only focus on the component of the compensation, rather than the larger scope. As a result, mitigation is often only associated and mistaken for compensation. This has resulted in a controversy where there have been much discussion on whether individuals or parties should focus more towards avoidance and minimization, and how