The Clean Air Act, signed into law by President Obama in February, aims to curb carbon emissions from power plants and improve air quality by banning the use of mercury in coal-fired power plants.
But some environmentalists fear that the bill will do more harm than good by encouraging industries to use mercury-contaminated chemicals in their production.
Here’s a look at how the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of 1868 and 1969 affected Utah’s environment.
Clean Air Law Utah enacted the Clean Water Act in 1868 to combat pollution from mines, ditches and sewage.
The act banned dumping mercury in waterways and other places where the state could collect and transport it, a practice that continued until 1969.
At the time, Utah was still a frontier state, and most of its coal mining was done in the Great Basin.
But the act required that mines and ditches discharge mercury into streams, lakes and groundwater.
The state was able to collect and ship mercury to other states for export to other places, including the Pacific Northwest.
The mercury was used to make cement, paint, metal and other products.
A federal judge ruled in 1971 that the act violated the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which bars interstate commerce.
The judge wrote that the mercury was “considered to be a pollutant by the general public” and thus “subject to regulation under the Clean water Act.”
The Clean Water and Clean Air Acts of 1969 and 1972 did not regulate the use or disposal of mercury by mines and dumps.
Instead, they restricted the use and disposal of a mixture of mercury and other pollutants to streams and lakes in Utah, as well as the sale of the mixture.
As a result, Utah’s mercury pollution remained largely unregulated.
After the Clean Environment Act was passed in 1972, the state began using the Mercury-Mercury Standard to determine how much mercury was being released into the environment each year, which was to be used as a way to measure mercury pollution.
In 1978, the U.S. Department of Labor issued regulations that required that any company that manufactures mercury-containing products, including paint, to report to the state the amount of mercury released.
The Department of Health and Human Services also required companies to notify the state of the amount that they had released, and the amount could not exceed a maximum of 200 parts per million (ppm).
The state also started testing the amount released by mines to see if they were releasing enough mercury into the water, and began regulating companies that were failing to meet the standard.
In 1999, the Utah legislature passed a law that prohibited the state from releasing mercury into public waters or wetlands, or from using it as an additive to other chemicals.
The law also required the state to use a test to determine if mercury was present in any mined or ditched mine or dumped waste stream.
It required the EPA to conduct a comprehensive study on mercury and the potential for harm.
In 2000, the EPA proposed a rule that would have required companies that manufactured and sold mercury to report on how much of it was released into Utah’s waters and wetlands, and to set up a statewide testing program to measure the amount.
In 2002, the Legislature passed a resolution that required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate a regulation that would require companies that manufacture or sell mercury-based products to submit a report to a state environmental review board every two years.
This rule required that the EPA consider how much lead or mercury is present in a mined or dumped mine or dump, and if any were present, to provide a statewide monitoring program for the amount, if any.
The EPA was given until September 2006 to respond to the resolution.
The Environmental Protection Act of 1986 was the first federal law to address the issue of mercury contamination in the environment.
It prohibits the use, storage, or disposal in any way of mercury.
But Congress passed the Clean Food and Drug Act in 1989 to address mercury contamination, as was the EPA’s 2005 rule.
Congress also passed the Methane Reduction Act in 1993, which prohibited the use in any manufacturing, processing, or retail setting of mercury-derived products, such as paint and metal.
In 2005, the Environmental Defense Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental advocacy group, sued the EPA and the U,S.
Environmental Protection Administration, alleging that the agencies were failing in their efforts to enforce the Clean Environmental Act of 1969.
The lawsuit argued that the federal government was violating the Clean Energy Act, which requires that all federal agencies collect and report data on the amount and quantity of mercury being released in the atmosphere.
The federal courts disagreed and found that the Clean Clean Energy and Methane Act of 1989, the Methanese Reduction Act of 1993, and other federal environmental laws were applicable.
The lawsuits also alleged that the state had violated the Cleanwater Act, the Clean Drinking Water Act and the Clean Aerosols Act, and that the states had failed to comply with the Clean Indoor Air Act. In 2010