Prior to learning about water resources in school, I never realized how much of an impact I could make when deciding to take a 10 minute shower instead of a 15 minute shower. I learned that I could save about 2,000 gallons of water a year if I reduced my shower time by two minutes. Even if the direct effect is not staring you straight in the face, cutting down on how much water you use in a given day does make a big difference. I also realized that I take clean water for granted, while many people throughout the world do not have this privilege. In countries such as Africa, there tends to be a primary water pollution problem. In fact, about a billion people worldwide lack access to clean drinking water.
In an article titled, “Protect Clean Water Necessary For Good Health and Strong Economy,” regional administrator Curt Spalding of EPA discusses how The Clean Water Act, which was passed in 1914, became an “economic triumph” for New England. The Clean Water Act regulates the amount of pollutants that get put into the water in the United States and regulates the quality standards for surface water. The Clean Water Act helped immensely to clean up the Boston Harbor. It is obvious that clean water is important for health reasons, but it also helps boost the regional economy.
“A cleaner Boston Harbor has increased the value of local property, encouraged more shipping, and created more jobs," Spalding wrote in the article.
In 2012, there was an increase in 50,000 jobs due to the cleaner harbor. In addition to increasing the quality of life for people, The Clean Water Act also provides a home for more aquatic life and wildlife. There has also been state wetland laws to make sure that all waterways do not get polluted. Unfortunately, about 67 percent of the United States’ streams and wetlands still have pollution in their waters. In a recent survey conducted by the EPA, Spalding concluded that “every business in America needs clean water to thrive." It is easy to see the importance of protecting the water quality all over the nation.
It is difficult to say whether I agree with Curt Spalding when he states that The Clean Water Act immensely changed New England. In the article, he discusses that The Clean Water Act caused an increase in 50,000 jobs due to port activity, which is backed by research. However, when Spalding states that The Clean Water Act was an economic triumph seems to be a more opinionated statement. In addition, Spalding has a biased view on the economic triump in New England due to the fact that he is the regional administrator of EPA’s New England office and wants New England to be seen in a positive light.