Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library

property rule. If Congress passed such a law, it could bo upheld
in a court of law, despite strong opposition from farmers. In
ono case, the Virginia State Water Control Board filed suit to
prevent Virginia municipalities which did not receive financial
assistance from the government from having to comply with
effluent limitations for publicly owned sewage treatment plants
by the specified date (State, 1977) The court upheld a bill which
empowered EPA to extend tho 1977 deadline for up to two yoars in
cases where compliance is physically or legally impossible. It
did not limit the applicability to thoso facilities receiving
financial assistance. Horoovor, oven the provision authorizing
caso-by-case extension of the deadline was later deleted without
comment by the Conference Committee, * This cloarly provides
strong support for the conclusion that Congress meant for the
deadlines to be rigid and that It did not Intend that sewage
treatment plants not receiving timoly federal grants should be
exempt from that doadline (Stato, 1977).
A shift in pollution rights away from farmers could be upheld by
the courts without requiring compensation of the farmers. Such a
reallocation of rights without compensation could be considered
by farmers to bo a taking. Howover, it is not clear that farmers
could avoid compliance with pollution control standards based on
"his issue. In upholding the natural uso of land as its highest
and boat uso, a Wisconsin court concluded that restrictions on
the use of land to maintain Its natural uso did not constitute a
taking of property rights. The Court stated that the real issue
is whether the wetlands-filling restrictions are unconstitutional
because they amount to a constructive taking of land without
compensation (Just, 1972).
Tho exorciso of the police power might require tho maintenance of
a body of wator in its natural stato. It may well be considered
a duty of adjacent landowners. Tho protection of public rights
may be accomplished by the oxerclso of tho police power unless
tho damage to the property owner is too groat and amounts to a
confiscation. An owner of land has no absolute and unlimited
right to uso it for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its
natural state and which injures the rights of others. This is
not a case where an owner is prevented from using his land for
natural and indigenous usos. The uses consistent with the nature
of the land are allowed and othor uses recognized and still
othars permitted by special permit (Just, 1972).
If highest and bast use is defined for water as use in an
unpolluted state, then this case raises questions as to farmers'
rights to allow nonpoint source pollution to emanate from their
land.
Sfjaa Addlttonal Considerations
Farmers' dissatisfaction with the allocation changes associated
with adopting a mandatory nonpoint sourco pollution control
585