Talk:Refuse Act

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Problems[edit]

The Refuse Act has overlaped extensively with the Clean Water Act (a.k.a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act) since 1972. The article barely mentions this fact and gives a very partial description of the state of water pollution standard-setting and enforcement in the U.S. today. These programs are carried out by all states and territories, EPA, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies.

Although the Refuse Act continues as a separate legal authority, any description of it must place it in context with the full breadth of the major water pollution programs in the U.S. Specific facts describing the statute and legal cases are fine, but POV-type allegations about government policy, enforcement priorities, etc. must be backed up with verifiable sources or they will be deleted. Please stick to the facts and dispense with the editorial comments. For further info please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks for your understanding. Moreau1 (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite[edit]

I rewrote the article to place the Refuse Act in context with recent/current law, i.e., the CWA--and address the problems stated above. The deleted text on the Whippany Paper Board Co. case is interesting and the case is probably notable, but no references were provided and it lacked context. If someone can look it up in a law journal, Lexis, Westlaw, etc. it could be summarized and added back to the article. The deleted text about an alleged Justice Dept. policy is also interesting, but a reference is needed. Moreau1 (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]