Sustainability Law (Take home exam) - Essay Example

This so because their actions contravened the provisions of these Articles, which requires that no person should pollute any waters in way that would make the waters harmful, poisonous or noxious to animals health, human beings, aquatic life, wildlife, birds, fish, or vegetation; or in a way that the poison, toxins, or pollutants become detrimental to any meaningful use of the said waters. It is clear that after 6 months of BBAD and Heisenberg fracking operation, Block the gas community group was able to determine that the waters in the local streams such as the Connedagain River, which drains its waters into the Murray Darling system had been contaminated; its salinity had greatly increased as a result of chemical contamination, which appeared to be related to BBAD’s extraction of deep ground water and the chemical used for fracking.

Further, these contaminants seems to exceed the inland waters standards set by the Queensland Environmental Protection Authority (Department of Employment 2010); which contravenes the provisions of Article 39 sub-section (2)(a)(i)(ii) and sub-section (b). (b) Do the Landers have any common law remedies that could assist them to stop the project and/or to obtain full compensation for the losses they have sustained? There are a number of common law remedies that the Landers could use to seek legal redress in order to stop BBAD’s project all together and obtain compensation for any losses they have incurred.

First, Common law considers the environment as an ecosystem of property with entitlement, where ownership is a must (Bates 2013). Thus, whether land is publicly or publicly owned, the owner has the right to do anything he/she likes with it; that is to say, if the owner chooses not to look after the environment, then that is his own problem. However, in the case where landowners’ activities are considered to infringe on the rights of the neighbouring land; then common law takes note and considers what is happening to the environment and to protect the property rights of the owner.

In this particular case, the activities of BBAD had infringed on the rights of the Landers; the water table in their land had dropped by close to a metre, thus affecting the drinking water that their cattle depended on. Further, the contamination of the Green Acres waters means that the Landers can no longer sell their beef at a premium price. Further, water, considered by common law as a non-static resource (Bates 2013), means that BBAD although have the property ownership right to do as they see fit with the mining site, have no such right with regards to water.

Thus, the Landers can rely on this remedy and argue that BBAD exploitation degradation of the waters in Green Acres unreasonably affected the Lander’s enjoyment of their property. It should be noted however, that the common law has never regarded and does not regard harm to the environment, prima facie, as being worthy of remedy under common law. The Landers, however, can seek compensation under the common action in nuisance, which as has already been mentioned, common law considers to be an infringement on the property rights of the land owner, although not a breach of duty.

Usually, these remedies are sought through trespass or nuisance actions, which are forms of civil wrong or tort, under which there is compensation for any injury or loss, and an injunction to stop all together, such injurious and unlawful activities (Meiners & Morriss 2000). Thus, its