| OCR Text |
Show 748 VIRGINIA that would preclude "reasonable use" of the stream by other ripar- ians. The difficulty in determining what acts cause the type of pollu- tion which will be restrained by injunction has been explained in this manner: What nature and extent of pollution will call for the active interference of the court is not in all cases easy to define. It is not every impurity im- parted to the water, however small in degree, that will be the subject of an injunction. All running streams are, to a certain extent polluted; and especially are they so when they flow through populous regions of the country, and the waters are utilized for mechanical and manufacturing purposes. The washing of the manured and cultivated fields, and the natural drainage of the country, of necessity bring many impurities to the stream; but these, and the like sources of pollution, cannot, ordinarily, be restrained by the courts * * *. It is not every interference with the water that imparts im- purities thereto that is actionable, but only such as impart to the water such impurities as substantially impair its value for the ordinary purposes of life, and render it measureably unfit for domestic purposes; or such as cause unwholesome or offensive vapors or ordors to arise from the water, and thus impair the comfortable or benefical enjoyment of property in its vicin- Even if water is polluted to the point that it becomes unfit for many uses to which it had been suitable, no injunction will be granted if such pollution results from a reasonable use of the land by the riparian causing pollution, such as subdivision and develop- ment.24 Also, if water becomes polluted as a result of the independent uses of a number of upstream riparians, but where the use of no single riparian causes such pollution as would destroy the utility of the water, no damages will be awarded and no injunction will issue because "each of the several parties concerned is liable only for the injuries due to his negligence." 25 Where actual damage is sustained by a riparian, damages will be awarded, despite the defense that the pollution resulted from a public use of the water (mining activity which promoted economic growth for the community.) 26 However, where the activity causing the pollution is beneficial to the general public, courts often refuse to grant an injunction, and limit the remedy of the plaintiff to an award of money damages.27 It must be remembered that the above cases involved disputes be- tween riparian water users, and these decisions do not impose limita- tions on state regulatory authority over water quality. B. PUBLIC WATER AGENCIES (I) Agencies at the State level The division of water resources, as a component of the depart- ment of conservation and economic development, is the State agency which is most likely to become responsible for water resources man- agement and administration in Virginia.28 At present, however, the division is primarily responsible for gathering information in con- nection with the economic and industrial value and potential use 83 Id. at 336, 339-40. "-*• Id. at 337. 23 Pula ski Anthracite Coal Co. v. Gibboney Sand Bar Co., 110 Va. 444, GO S.E. 73 (1000). 26 Arnimius Chemical Co. v. Landrum, 113 Va. 7, 73 S.E. 459 (1912). * Akera v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 151 Va. 1, 144 S.E. 492 (1928). 2fi See discussion in section 1 of this chapter, supra. |
