fact, State X is so far in compliance that Pollution Company could operate for many years before there was a problem.
What would you suggest to Toby regarding compliance with the Clean Air Act?
Toby should disregard the Clean Air Act so long as his state is meeting national ambient air quality standards.
Toby should disregard the Clean Air Act so long as his state is meeting national ambient air quality standards,
and he can show an economic downturn of at least 10% in his state over the past 12 months.
Toby should disregard the Clean Air Act so long as his state is meeting national ambient air quality standards,
he can show an economic downturn of at least 10% in his state over the past 12 months, and he can show an
increase in the unemployment level of at least 5% in his state over the past 12 months.
Toby should not disregard the Clean Air Act because it requires that air quality in those areas that meet the
national ambient air quality standards not be allowed to deteriorate.
Fact Pattern 15-1
Gretta is the CEO of a paper company built near a river used in interstate commerce although the state in which the
company is located is land locked and not near the coast. Gretta determines that a significant amount of money needs to
be spent to comply with the federal Clean Water Act. She is already in trouble with stockholders because of low profits
and does not wish to spend extra money on pollution control. Therefore, she instructs employees to simply dump waste
into the river. She was aware that she would be fired if the company received a heavy fine, but she decided to take the risk
because she was in danger of being fired if profits did not come up anyway. Also, while Gretta believed that the Clean Air
Act applied; Linda, a majority stockholder, told her that the Clean Water Act would not apply based upon the location of
the plant.
55. Refer to Fact Pattern 15–1. Is Linda correct in her argument that the Clean Water Act would not apply based upon the
location of the plant?
Yes, Linda is correct that the Clean Water Act would not apply because the state does not border the coast.
Yes, Linda is correct that the Clean Water Act would not apply because a river would not be considered a
navigable waterway.
Yes, Linda is correct that the Clean Water Act would not apply because the state does not border the coast and
also because a river would not be considered a navigable waterway.
No, Linda is incorrect; the river would be considered a navigable waterway; it does not matter that the state is
not on the coast; and the Clean Water Act would apply.
United States – BUSPROG: – ANALYTIC
56. Refer to Fact Pattern 15–1. Does Gretta have any greater danger in this situation than being fired?
Yes, she can be held individually liable for the pollution since she knowingly violated the Clean Water Act;
d
1
United States – BUSPROG: – ANALYTIC
DISC: – AICPA: BB-Legal
15-4 The Clean Air Act
Blooms: Analysis