Advocacy Project: Issue Overview

Introduction
· Problem: Many assessed rivers, lakes, and estuaries throughout the United States are unsafe for fishing or recreational purposes.
· Current Legislation: H.R.585, To direct the President to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate certain Federal rules and regulations for potentially harmful impacts on public health, air quality, water quality, plant and animal wildlife, global climate, or the environment; and to direct Federal departments and agencies to create plans to reverse those impacts that are determined to be harmful by the National Academy of Sciences.

Who is affected by the issue?
· Who is affected the most? Anyone who uses unsafe rivers, lakes, and estuaries for irrigation, swimming, fishing, rafting, boating, and industrial purposes. Also, anyone who consumes fish taken from rivers, lakes, and estuaries with poor ambient water quality. These conditions may also affect wildlife which uses the water for drinking or as a habitat.
· Who loses and what do they lose? People and animals loose good health and a safe habitat.
· Who gains and what do they gain? Industrial factories, construction companies, mining companies, sewage treatment plants, cities with storm-sewer outflows into bodies of water, and farmers gain an outlet source for their pollutant runoff.

What are the consequences of the issue?
· For the individuals mostly affected? Untreated human waste, sediment, oil, antifreeze, contaminated groundwater, garbage, acid rain, fertilizers, and other chemicals cause disease and death in humans and wildlife. It also destroys the natural habitat of many organisms and the natural environment for human enjoyment.
· For their families? The loss or harm of a loved one due to death or disease.
· For society? If these measures are not taken to correct water pollution, life on earth will suffer severely. Global environmental collapse is not inevitable.

What is the economic impact of the issue?
· What are the economic costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? It is expensive for the government to treat and prevent water contamination.
· What are the economic benefits of the issue, and who benefits? Water treatment and prevention costs money to maintain, but prevention is much cheaper than cleaning up water pollution that has already occurred. In the end, this could benefit the government by saving them money.

What is the social impact of the issue?
· What are the social costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? If these measures are not taken to correct water pollution, life on earth will suffer severely. Global environmental collapse is not inevitable.
· What are the social benefits of the issue, and who benefits? In some ways, it benefits society and government to not have to pay for treatment or clean-up of water pollution and direct the money to other important issues that also protect the health of society.

What are the barriers?
· What are the barriers to addressing this issue? Cost, clean-up labor, sustainability.
· How can they be overcome? Don’t try to return these bodies of water to pristine conditions all at once. Set goals for maintaining healthy eco-systems and may concentrate of the protection of populations of endangered species and protecting human health. Start out by focusing on the designation of uses, which allow for some water contamination as long as a particular type of contamination is not harmful to the designate uses.

What are the resources?
· What resources will we need to address this issue? Funding, clean-up labor, staff to monitor and maintain improved water quality.
· Where and how can they be tapped? Environmental laws may require government and taxpayers to provide funding, clean-up resources, and staff to correct the water pollution problem.

What is the history of this issue?
· What is the history of the issue in the community? Serious degradation in water quality has occurred in the Minnesota River over the last 150 years due to significant changes in land use. The poor water quality of the Minnesota River is due to the vast agricultural landscape that contributes billions of dollars to the economy of Minnesota
· What past efforts were made to address it? In relation to the Minnesota River, the DNR has posted signs warning of fines for dumping “garbage” into the river. Several forms of legislation have been passed in recent decades to try to control water pollution.
· What were the results? Stronger legislation is needed to reduce unsanitary levels of pollution.
Allies & Opponents
· Who would support this issue? Those who enjoy rivers, lakes, and estuaries for recreational purposes. In addition, anyone who’s health has deteriorated to due poor ambient water quality.
· Who would oppose this issue? Those who use rivers, lakes, and estuaries as a convenient source for runoff. In addition, government or taxpayers who wouldn’t want to cover the cost to correct the problem.

My Recommendation
· How do you want policy-makers to vote on this proposed policy? I want my local representative to vote YES on H.R.585!