Attitudes towards Privateering during the Era of the Early American Republic

Lacking sufficient funds to build and maintain a sizeable navy, the young United States was forced to employ privateers as a “stop-gap navy” in its struggles against stronger sea powers during the War for Independence, the Quasi War, and the War of 1812. Many American leaders opposed privateering on moral grounds, but felt compelled to employ it. Merchants and seamen were generally more supportive, wither because their usual employment, fishing and peaceful commerce, was denied them when enemies hovered outside American ports and began seizing American ships, or because privateering offered the prospect of quick and large profits. Sailors preferred service in privateers to enlisting in the navy because discipline tended to be less rigorous in privateers than in warships, privateers appeared safer since their captains generally tried to avoid combat with enemy men of war, and privateers offered the prospect of more prize money from the sale of captured ships. Officers in the Continental and United States Navy usually opposed privateering because privateers competed with them for recruits and for naval stores to fit their ships out for sea. Though controversial, it cannot be denied that privateering proved effective. The attacks launched by the private vessels on British and French commerce forced those governments to assign naval forces to protect their shipping. At home, privateering brought a level of prosperity to several American seaports that those communities had not experienced before. Despite its development of a regular navy during the nation’s first half century of independence, the United States continued to employ privateering as an integral part of its defense policy, attitudes toward the practice remained the same, merchants eagerly invested in privateering expeditions, and sailors viewed it as an attractive alternative to service in the regular Navy

Restoration Measures, Cooling Water Intake Structures, and the Protection of Ecosystems: The Regulatory Scheme of Clean Water Act Section 316(B)

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” In 1972, Congress enacted sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act because power plants that draw cooling water through water intake structures and later discharge the water at elevated temperatures have the potential to affect the maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Power plants draw cooling water from a source, such as a river or reservoir, to cool plant equipment or to condense the steam that turns their turbines. As plants draw water for these processes, adult fish and larger organisms are sometimes drawn into the plants’ intake structures and can become entrapped (“impinged”) against intake screens. These screens are designed to filter out debris that would interfere with the operation of, or cause damage to, condenser systems. Organisms that are not removed from the cooling water by the intake screens--typically small benthic, planktonic and nektonic organisms--are “entrained,” meaning they are carried through the power plant’s condenser systems. Environmental groups take the position that because cooling water systems may endanger the maintenance of optimum yields of sport and commercial fish or disrupt sensitive ecosystems, § 316(b) regulation is necessary. Section 316(b) requires that the “location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” (excerpt from Introduction)This material published in Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy is made available by the James E. Rogers College of Law, the Daniel F. Cracchiolo Law Library, and the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact the AJELP Editorial Board at https://ajelp.com/contact-us