Water Pollution. Taylor Bay Protective Association is a nonprofit corporation established for the purpose of restoring and improving the water quality of Taylor Bay. Local water districts began operating a flood-control project in the area. As part of

Question

the project, a pumping station was developed. Testimony at trial revealed that the pumps were operated contrary to the in-structions provided in the operation and maintenance manual. The pumps acted as vacuums, sucking up silt and depositing the silt in Taylor Bay. Thus, the project resulted in sedimentation and turbidity (a condition of having dense, stirred-up particles) problems in the downstream wa-tercourse of Taylor Bay. The association sued the local water districts, alleging that the pump-ing operations created a nuisance. Do the pumping operations qualify as a common law nui-sance? Who should be responsible for the cleanup costs? Discuss both questions fully.

Answer 1

Water pollution
Common law nuisance can be caused by negligent acts. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the local water districts' operation of the flood control project did proximately cause sedimentation in the downstream watercourse and did classify as a nuisance. To remedy the situation, the districts first should be compelled to institute measures that may remedy the sedi-mentation problem. Then, if this fails, the local districts should be accountable for only the amount of harm caused by them. In other words, the districts should not have to pay the entire clean-up costs because factors such as farmland erosion, for which the districts were in no way responsible, caused some of the sedimentation in Taylor Bay.