The Stratford Evening Post. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1912. POLLUTION OF WATER BILL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 39, 9 October 1912, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1912. POLLUTION OF WATER BILL.

That the fullest consideration has not been given to a short measure recently introduced into the House, seems pretty evident by the dissatisfaction which it is arousing. Die Bill referred to is the “Pollution of Water Act, 1912,” and ns an amend - ing measure so far as the law relating to the pollution of any river, stream, lake, or other public water is concerned. The second reading was reached last week, and the Bill was referred to Committee to report. One very important provision will seriously affect settlers who may have to depend on some near-by running stream for their water-supply, in that it proposes that in any action relating to pollution of water by waste products the plaintiff’s remedy shall be in damages, and he shall not be entitled to an injunction “unless he shall prove to the satisfaction of the Court that such pollution has caused or is causing to him or to his property such actual and irreparable loss and damage as cannot be the subject of compensation by damages.” Further, the Bill requires that proof that water is rendered by waste products to be less fit for use, either by persons or animals, shall not be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to an injunction unless it is also proved that the quality of the water is so deteriorated by the pollution by waste products as to render it unfit for use by persons or animals, and that there is not available to the plaintiff a sufficient supply of other unpolluted water upon or immediately adjacent to his property. There is very much more in this than at first appears, and though it may suit flaxmills and sawmills and cheese and butter-factories to have greater latitude in the direct disposal of waste products into running water, such relaxation as this Bill would permit, by making the obtaining of an inunction almost impossible, would not be in the best interests of the general community. Another clause mi the Bill is one requiring very close scrutiny. It provides that where, mi any action for pollution of water by waste products already heard and detei mined the Court has granted an injunction, the Court may, upon the applicat.i n

of the defendant at any time within twelve months alter the commencement of the new law, if it thinks tit, dissolve such injunction, and assess damages to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, as well for past as for subsequent injury from such pollution from time to time, as ii such action had been commenced after the passing of the measure. Another point which deserves consideration is how the change will affect the. f routfishing in our streams. Should toe Bill become law as it now stands, it will leave loop holes for the pollution of water to such an extent that bsl) will almost assuredly he exterminated from many streams, arid much of the good work done by Acclimatisation Societies at the expenditure of a great deal of time and money will he undone. Last night the Stratford Acclimatisation Society passed a resolution emphatically protesting against the Bi'J. and other Societies are taking similar action.