OCR Text |
Show MISSOURI 441 tions of the act, and criminal penalties are provided. The State or any political subdivision is authorized to bring action against a pollutor for damages suffered.20 Funds may be contributed to local political subdivisions to assist in the construction of water pollution control projects, and the board may receive and distribute Federal funds made available for this purpose under any Federal act.21 In addition to the authority vested in the water pollution board, the division of health has responsibility for the control of the quality of water delivered to the public m order to safeguard and protect the public health. Plans and specifications for water supply systems must be submitted to the division, and the source of supply must be approved before use is commenced.22 Apart from the statutory provisions discussed above, the Missouri courts have held that the right of a riparian landowner extends to quality as well as quantity of water, and that it is unlawful to pollute a stream which results in injury to a riparian landowner.23 However, where the pollution results from the independent acts of a number of polluters, each is answerable only for his contribution, and not for the damage caused by others.24 Pollution of watercourses by private individuals may be abated by other riparians damaged therefrom, as temporary nuisances, but the court has also allowed recovery of damages for permanent injuries.25 Pollution by municipalities has received somewhat special treat- ment by the Missouri courts. In a number of cases, the relief af- forded the riparian owners was limited to damages and the pollution was allowed to continue because it was determined that there was no other feasible method of disposing of the sewage, and that its disposal was necessary to the protection of the public health.28 However, it was recently stated that in light of modern technology it is proper to determine whether it is reasonable, practicable, and scientifically feasible to abate the pollution.27 B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS As pointed out above, the decisional and statutory law in Missouri regarding water is very limited. The conflicts which have recently developed in the West over such instream uses as fish culture and recreation have not arisen in the Missouri decisions, apparently because the riparian doctrine serves to keep the water in the channel. However, the Water Quality Act, which is discussed above, does pro- vide that the policy of the State is to protect water quality for water supply purposes, conservation of fish, game, and aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses.28 20 Missouri Rev. Stat., sees. 204.040 to 204.060, 204.100, 204.170, 204.180. 21 Missouri Rev. Stat., sees. 204.120, 204.200 to 204.240. 22 Missouri Rev. Stat., sees. 192.180,192.200. &Hanlin v. Burk Bros. Meat & Provision Co., 174 Mo. App. 462, 160 S.W. 547 (1913) ; Blanken8hip v. Kansas Explorations, 325 Mo. 998, 30 S.W. 2d 471 (1930) : Divelolss v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 272 S.W. 2d 839 (K.C. Ct. app. 1954). * Somerset Villa, Inc. v. City of Lee's Summit, 436 S.W. 2d 658 (1968). MHanlin v. Burk Bros. Meat & Provision Co., 174 Mo. App. 462, 160 S.W. 547 (1913) ; BlankensMp v. Kansas Exploration, 325 Mo. 998, 30 S.W. 2d 471 (1930). 26 Smith v. City of Sedalia, 244 Mo. 107, 149 S.W. 597 (1912) ; Stewart v. City of Springfield, 350 Mo. 234,165 S.W. 2d 626 (1942). 27 Hillhouse v. City of Aurora, 316 S.W. 2d 883 (Spr. Ct. app. 1958). 28 Missouri Rev. Stat., sec. 104.080(9). |