OCR Text |
Show VIRGINIA 747 deposit to State waters by other owners is sufficient to cause pollu- tion." 10 The State water quality board is given typical powers by the act, including the authority to employ a technical staff and con- sultants, conduct investigations and inspections, establish standards of water quality, classify streams, issue permits or certificates for the discharge of wastes into waters, and to promulgate rules and regu- lations to govern the procedures to be followed by the board in carry- ing out its duties under the Act.11 The Act requires notice and hear- ing before water quality standards are adopted by the Board, before cancellation of certificates allowing discharge of wastes, and before issuing special orders to cease and desist from causing pollution.12 Any aggrieved person is entitled to judicial review of any final order of the Board.13 Any violation of the act or of any special final order of the board, or of any order of any court issued under the act, shall result in a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $5,000 for each violation, and each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.14 Other statutes relating to water quality include the sanitary dis- tricts law, which authorizes the creation of special districts to pro- vide facilities for the treatment of wastes;15 a prohibition (with criminal penalties) against depositing certain contaminating sub- stances in the waters of the State;16 and a prohibition against dis- charging any wastes which will be injurious to fish life,17 although fish losses from pollution are within the jurisdiction of the State water control board under the 1970 act.18 The board may require compensation to be paid by the person who discharged the waste and caused the loss of fish, either by settlement or litigation, in an amount sufficient to pay for the replacement value of the fish de- stroyed and also the costs of the board in conducting its investiga- tion of the loss.19 By statute the board is "deemed owner of the fish killed" and the fact that the defendant discharged the wastes pur- suant to a permit issued by the board will not absolve him from liability for payment of the fish loss.20 Construing a similar provision of an earlier statute, the Virginia court held that the authority of the water control board did not impliedly repeal the fish law, but that both statutes were to be administered so far as they were com- patible.21 Some brief comments should be made with respect to common law rights as they relate to water pollution. As a general proposition, the Virginia cases have held use of water by a riparian which results in pollution which operates as an "actual invasion of the rights" of other riparians is not a reasonable use, but constitutes a nuisance which may be enjoined.22 Of course, injunctions are not issued for every act which causes some deterioration in water quality, because 10 Id. 11 Sections 62.1-44.7 through 62.1-44.15. 12 Id.; see also Sec. 62.1-44.25. u Sec. 62.1-44.29. "Sec. 62.1-44.32. 15 Sec. 21-24 et seq. M Sec. 62.1-194 et. seq. 17 Sees. 29-148 et. seq. "Sec. 62.1-44.15(11). 19 Id. »> Id. at 62.1-44.15 (11) (c). 21 American Cyanamid Go. v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 831, 48 S.E. 2d 279 (1948). 22 Trevett v. Prison Association of Virginia, 98 Va. 332, 36 S.E. 373 (1900). |