WATER POLLUTION AND RELEVANT
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
By:
REHAN RAUF ADVOCATE
M.A. (POLITICAL SCIENCE)
M.A (HISTORY)
P.G.D.E.L., LL.B (
E.MAIL: DJREHAN103FM@YAHOO.COM
“It is man’s birth right to have
clean water”
Introduction
Water pollution may be called as the
undesirable adverse change in composition of the water such that it becomes
unsuitable for the purpose for which it would be suitable in the natural state.
Water is a vital resource which makes possible survival of living things. The
availability of water often determines the rate of economic development as well
as setting its limits. The increasing demand for water for human activities has
in recent years exerted tremendous pressure, resulting
in the deterioration of both the quality and quantity of available fresh water
resources.
Water
Pollution
Water pollution is
the contamination of water bodies such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and
groundwater caused by human activities, which can be harmful to organisms and
plants that live in these water bodies.
Unpolluted Water is
the Fundamental Right of every citizen of
Under provision of Article
38(d) of the Constitution, it is the primary duty of Government to provide
people basic necessities of life which includes unpolluted water for their
consumption.
There are various sources of Polluted
Water such as Industrial and municipal effluents discharges, Washing of animals
and vehicles, Flood, canal irrigation systems, agricultural run-off
transporting fertilizer, un-sewered communities etc.
General Laws
There are various
general laws relating to prohibition of Water Pollution and a few of them are
as under:
Section 277 of PPC relates to
fouling water of public spring or reservoir & Section 268 of same
Code consider water pollution Nuisance
(ii)
The Canal and Drainage Act, 1873
This Act deals with the use and
controls for public purposes the water of all rivers and streams flowing in
natural channels and of all lakes, sub-soil water and other natural collection
of still water.
Section 70 of CDA levy fine and
three months imprisonment for corrupting and fouling the water of any canal so
as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used.
According to Section 73 of the
same Code it is an offence to willfully damage or Obstruct any canal or drainage or
interference the supply and flow.
(iii)
The Factories Act, 1934
Section 14 requires the factory
owners to make effective arrangements for the
disposal of waste and effluents from manufacturing process. It also impose fine on polluters.
(iv)
The
Section
26(I) of the Act makes it Punishable if any person, who, in contravention
of the rules Poisons Water of a Forest Area.
Section 8 requires that
sewerage and industrial waste must be treated and made harmless for fish and
other aquatic life before they are discharged in the waters.
(vi)
Land improvement Loans Act 1883 (enforced by Provincial Governments)
provides for loans for improvements of land such as storage, supply or
distribution of water, drainage, reclamation from rivers or other waters etc.
(vii) Easement Act, 1882, Illustrations (f) and (h) of section 7
deals with the pollution of waters.
(viii) Karachi Join Water Board
Ordinance, 1949 and Karachi Joint Water Rules, 1956, prohibits fouling of water supplies,
water works, or water tanks.
(ix)
Sind Fisheries Ordinance 1951, (enforced by the Provincial Government)
prohibits the discharge of untreated sewage and industrial waste in water.
(x)
The
(xi)
Water Management and Water users’ Associations Ordinance
1981, is an
ordinance to provide for on-form water management, conservation, and optimum
utilization of irrigation water sources and formation of water users’
association in the Province of the
Special Law
Special law,
relating to prohibition of Water Pollution, is Pakistan Environmental
Protection Act, 1997. (PEPA) It’s following provision deal in this regard.
(I)
Section 11 of PEPA describes that “ No Person shall discharge or emit or
allow to discharge or emission of any effluent or waste or air pollutant or
noise in an amount, concentration or level which is in excess of the National
Environmental Quality Standards.”
Pakistani Judgments on Prohibition of
Water Pollution
Following are a few
vital Pakistani judgments on Water Pollution.
(1) In
(2) Again in
(A)
Punjab Coal Company (P.P.C) is directed to shift within four
months, the location of the mouth of mine No. 27A at a safe distance from the
stream and small reservoir in such a manner that they are not polluted by mine
debris, carbonized material and water spilled out from the mines to the
satisfaction of the Commission consisting of the following members:
(i)
Dr. Parvez Hassan,
Advocate,
(ii)
Dr. Tariq Banuri;
(iii)
Director, Industries and Mineral Development,
(iv)
A member nominated by PMDC [Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation];
and
(v)
A member co-opted by the aforesaid members of the commission.
The Commission
shall have power of inspection, recording evidence, examining witnesses
including the powers as provided by Order XXVI Civil Procedure Code 1908. If,
on the report of the commission, it transpires that shifting of the mine mouth
is not possible, then the case shall b place before the court for further
consideration including the question whether the operation of mine No.27A
should be completely stopped;
(B)
PMDC is directed to install a second pipeline connecting the top
level reservoir;
(C)
PMDC will enlarge the top level water reservoir and construct wall
reservoir cost of which will be shared equally by PMDC and P.P.C.;
(D)
P.P.C. and all the mines operating adjacent to the water
catchment’s area shall take such measure to the satisfaction of the Commission,
which may prevent pollution of the water source reservoir, stream beds and
water catchment’s area;
(E)
Respondent No.1 and all authorities empowers and authorized to
grant, renew or extend the mining lease or license, are ordered:
(i)
Not to grant any fresh lease/license/permission to carry out
mining work in the area which prior to 1981 was water catchment’s area;
(ii)
Not to renew or extend existing lease/license of the mines
mentioned in the Schedule to the judgment without prior permission of this
court…
(3) In Mst. Ameer Bano vs. S.E. Highways, PLD
1996 Lahore 592, the
petitioner raised the grievance that the sewerage system in Bahawalpur
had become totally unserviceable with the result that the dirty water has
collected on the form of ponds, in some cases it has entered the dwelling
houses and on the roads. The highway department is constructing the roads at a
very high level and if it is allowed to continue, the overflowing dirty water
will enter the residential houses.
The court held that, it is apprehended the residents will contract
many diseases, which in turn will mean that human life in the area will be
endangered. Thus, protection to life guaranteed under article 9 of the
constitution will stand denied to a large number of citizens. The court treated
the petition as Public Interest Litigation for the enforcement of fundamental
rights. Due to urgency involved the court decided to decide the petition
immediately and dispensing with the normal procedure of admitting the case in
the first instance and deciding it later on. The court issued certain
directions to secure the fundamental rights of the citizen with regard to
protection of their life from disease and inconvenience.
(4) The Lahore High Court in Writ Petition
No. 671 of 1995, Rana Ishaque vs. D.G, EPA and others, restrained 121 industrial units of the Punjab, excluding those that had
already installed treatment plants from discharging effluents into drains and
canals on petition stating that these were being drained without treatments.
Consequently, most of industries started to install treatment plants to avoid
any threatened litigation in the future.
(5) In Nazim,
U.C. Allah Bachayo Shore vs. The State,
2004 YLR 2077, the Sind High
Court held that right to unpolluted water is a right of every citizen of
(6) Anjum Irfan
vs. LDA and others, PLD 2002
In February 2001 the Lahore High Court appointed Dr. Parvez Hassan as the amices
curiae to assist the court in the Writ Petition, Anjum
Irfan vs. LDA and others. Dr. Parvez
Hassan filed certain proposals for controlling
Vehicular and other Pollution in
(7)
Muhammad Shafiq vs. Arif Hameed Mehar, PLD 2008 SC 716,
Arrangement
of supply of clean water to the residents of
In the UK
there are common
law rights (civil rights) to protect the passage of water across land
unfettered in either quality of quantity. Criminal laws dating back to the 16th
century exercised some control over water pollution but it was not until the Rivers
(Prevention of pollution) Acts 1951 - 1961 were enacted that any systematic
control over water pollution was established. These laws were strengthened and
extended in the Control of Pollution Act 1984 which has since been
updated and modified by a series of further acts. It is a criminal offence to
either pollute a lake, river, groundwater or the sea or to discharge any liquid
into such water bodies without proper authority. In England and Wales such
permission can only be issued by the Environment Agency and in Scotland by SEPA.
In the USA, concern over water
pollution resulted in the enactment of state anti-pollution laws in the latter
half of the 19th century, and federal legislation enacted in 1899. The Refuse Act
of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
prohibits the disposal of any refuse matter from into either the nation's
navigable rivers, lakes, streams, and other navigable bodies of water, or any
tributary to such waters, unless one has first obtained a permit. The Water Pollution Control Act, passed in
1948, gave authority to the Surgeon General to reduce
water pollution. However, this law did not lead to major reductions in
pollution.
Growing public
awareness and concern for controlling water pollution led Congress to carry out a major re-write of
water pollution law in 1972. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, commonly known as the Clean
Water Act (CWA), established the basic mechanisms for controlling point
source pollution. The law mandated the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish and enforce wastewater
standards for industry and municipal sewage treatment plants. The Act also
continued requirements that EPA and states issue water quality standards for surface water bodies.
Congress included authorization in the Act for major public financing to build
municipal sewage treatment plants. The 1972 CWA, however, did not require
similar regulatory standards for non-point sources.
In 1987,
Congress expanded the coverage of the CWA with enactment of the Water Quality
Act. These amendments defined both municipal and industrial storm water
discharges as point sources and required these facilities to obtain discharge
permits. The 1987 law also re-organized the public financing of municipal
treatment projects and created a non-point source demonstration grant program.
Further amplification of the CWA included the enactment of the Great Lakes
Legacy Act of 2002.
American Leading Judgments on Water Pollution
·
United States vs., Riverside Bayview
Homes, Inc (1985), upheld the Act's coverage in regulating wetlands
that intermingle with navigable waters.
·
Solid Agency of North Cook County
(SWANCC) vs. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2001), possibly
denying the CWA's hold in isolated intrastate waters and certainly denying the
validity of the 1986 "Migratory
Bird Rule."
·
S. D. Warren Co. vs. Maine Bd. of Environment Protection
(2006), involving section 401 state certification requirements for
federally-licensed activities that cause a discharge into navigable waters.
·
Rapanos vs. United
States (2006), a plurality decision in which the Supreme Court
questioned federal
jurisdiction as it attempted to define the Act's use of the terms
"navigable waters" and "waters of the United States."
Though the case resulted in no binding case law, the Court suggested a narrowing of
federal jurisdiction and implied the federal government needed a more
substantial link between navigable federal waters and wetlands than it had been
using, but held onto the "significant nexus" test.
·
National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
(2007). Upheld EPA's approval of NPDES program for State of Arizona. EPA was not required to consult with
the Fish
and Wildlife Service, under the Endangered Species Act,
during the approval process
Conclusion
Water pollution causes Sixty per cent of infant mortality
in Pakistan and is now the country’s biggest killer. Water is polluted when it contains
materials that make it unsuitable for a given use. The pollution problem is
consequences of population. It is not a question of taking something out of the
commons, but of putting something in sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat
waste into water: noxious and dangerous fumes into the air: and distracting and
unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight.