| OCR Text |
Show GEORGIA 229 ernor and representing certain interest groups. Of these, one repre- senting the department of public health is chairman of the board. Four other members represent what might be called public interest groups. The others represent commerce, agricultural, and industrial interests, and one is selected from the public at large. Waters of the State which are subject to the supervision of the board are broadly defined to include all waters lying within or forming a part of the boundaries of the State, either natural or artificial and either surface or subsurface. The act thus applies to purely intrastate as distin- guished from interstate bodies of water. The only exception is found in water which is "entirely confined and detained completely upon the property of a single individual * * * "7 Some light is also shed on the scope of the act in the statutory definition of pollution. This includes such alterations in the water as "will render or is likely to render the waters harmful to the public health, safety, or welfare, or harmful or substantially less useful for domestic, municipal, indus- trial, agricultural, recreational, or other lawful uses, or for animals, birds, or aquatic life." 8 Clearly, this contemplates alterations which may constitute something less than a common law public or private nuisance. The board is, of course, authorized to issue water quality or purity standards in accordance with the public interests specified above. In doing so, the board is admonished to "consider the technical means available for the reduction of pollution and the economical factors involved."9 The board is also probably impliedly authorized to classify waters of the State for various uses and, indeed, it has done so. Also, it has adopted and published quality standards for the interstate streams which were approved by the Department of the Interior in 1967. The act also establishes a pollution permit system. Since 1972, any person violating any provision of the act or, neg- ligently or intentionally, failing or refusing to comply with any final or emergency order of the director of the division is liable to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for such violation and an addi- tional civil penalty not to exceed $500 for each day during which the violation continues. The act also provides that such violations shall be determined and imposed after an administrative hearing before the director. Any person so penalized is entitled to judicial review. The administrative hearing and the proceeding for judicial review must be in accordance with the provisions of the State's administra- tive procedure act.10 One study has recently been made of the way in which the water pollution program has been administered in Georgia.11 The reader should also consult the recent Ealph Nader Study Group Eeport on the pollution and destruction of the Savannah River in the area of Savannah.12 To put it mildly, the report is not very encouraging. Of 'Sec. 17-503 (d). 8 Sec. 17-503 (f). "Sec. 17-505(b) (10). "Sec. 17.521.2 (1972 supp.). 11K. Hirsch, On Buying Olean Water-Reflections on the Georgia Water Pollution Controls, 23 Mercer L. Rev. 603 (1972). 18 J. Fallows, The Water Lords (Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on Industry and Environmental Crisis In Savannah, Ga.) (1971). It should be noted that on July 26, 1972, an order was entered in the Superior Court of Chatham County, Ga., placing various restrictions on municipalities in the Savannah area. The Intendant and Oomm'rs of the Town of Vernonourg v. The Mayor and Alderman of the city of Savannah, Civil Action No. 6353. |
