Recent Developments in International Environmental
Pollution Control
Frederick J. E. Jordan *
I. Air and Water Pollution in North America
The history of economic and social progress in the United States
and Canada is replete with illustrations of our emphasis on exploitation
rather than conservation of resources. We have viewed natural
resources as things inexhaustible and indestructable –
to be used
and abused by all generations as limitless gifts of nature. Increasingly
we have discovered that every resource has its ultimate limits and
have been compelled to set about the arduous tasks of conserving,
protecting or restoring, often at enormous costs.
Such is the story of our two vital environmental resources,
water and air. In developing our industries and metropolises, our
transportation systems and our playgrounds we have relied heavily
on the abundance of water and air without questioning their capacities
to do our biddings. Recently we have been shocked to discover that
in the process of building our material society we have converted
many of our fresh waters into open sewers and our fresh air in
some areas into palls of death-laden smog. As the Science Council
of Canada recently observed.
In these basic respects our ancestors of prehistoric times were better off
than we are today; their air was pure, their rivers clean and their habitat
luxuriant. What benefit our mechanical advances if nature becomes a slum?
What triumph our ingenuity in flying to the moon if our surroundings
are dirty? Today everyone realizes this neglect, many demand palliatives,
some have a duty to rectify errors. How are we to enjoy the benefits of
nature without destroying them in the process?’
How, indeed, has become the pressing question as governments
and industry have come to appreciate that preventive and remedial
measures are imperative if the environmental resources are to be
preserved and, in many cases, restored to a usable state. The only
answers appear to be massive expenditures of public and private
funds for research into the problems of pollution, equally massive
*Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University.
1″A Major Program of Water Resource Research in Canada”, Report No. 3
of The Science Council of Canada, Ottawa, (September, 1068), p. 3.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 15
amounts for development of techniques and devices to treat and
control pollution, rigorous and effective laws and machinery designed
to foster and to compel pollution abatement and control and the
education of an often apathetic public.
Evidence of the extent and magnitude of water pollution in North
America is present on every hand. In the United States the problem
has reached crisis proportions in a number of densely populated and
heavily industrialized areas. Presidential messages to Congress in
recent years chronicle the growing blight. In 1961, President Kennedy
observed that “Pollution of our country’s rivers and streams has as
a result of rapid population and industrial growth and change,
reached alarming proportions”. 2 Four years later President Johnson
added that “Every major river system is now polluted… In spite
of the efforts and many accomplishments of the past, water pollution
is spreading.” 3 This year, the President cited further examples of
worsening conditions: fish kills, closed beaches, oil slicks, algae
growths and contaminated drinking waters. 4 These views are
buttressed by the evidence compiled in a report of the Senate
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution in 1966.1, An estimate
of the raw sewage being dumped into the nation’s waterways was
given, in 1967, as four billion pounds a year.0 The Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration set the cost of a clean-up of this
situation at between $26 and $29 billion. 7
In Canada, water pollution is also a problem of major proportions
in certain areas and, while it is not of the magnitude or extent of
the situation in the United States, it could readily become a crisis
in the absence of effective action. Almost daily the press reports
new cases of water pollution from British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec
or New Brunswick and attacks the complacency of governments and
the public –
a complacency stemming from the belief that our
or go bad”. 8
abundance of “aqueous treasures will never run out –
2 President’s Message on Natural Resources to the United States Congress,
February 2, 1061.
3 President’s Message on Natural Beauty to the United States Congress,
February W7th, 1965.
4 President’s Message on Conservation and Water Management to the United
States Congress, March 8, 1968.
5 89th Congress, 2d Session, Senate, Report to the Committee on Public Works
on Steps Toward Clean Water, January 1066.
ONewsweek, August 21, 1967, p. 61, Report of Senate hearings on water
pollution.
7New York Times, January 25, 1968.
8 Time (Canada), August 2, 1968, pp. 9-10.
No. 2]
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
281
It is difficult to find any reliable assessment of the extent of the
problem generally throughout Canada or of the magnitude of the
expenditures which are necessary to effect a program of research,
abatement and control. However, the recent study by the Science
Secretariat of the Privy Council Office emphasized the growing
threat of water pollution to the fisheries, recreation, wildlife and
municipal water supplies in the heavily populated regions of the
country and underscored the need for accelerated research into the
causes of pollution and methods of treatment. 9 These observations
led the Science Council to urge vigorous and substantially increased
support for research into the sources and causes of water pollution
in Canada. “Little is being done to solve them, but they will remain
unanswered for Canadian conditions until tackled in Canada.”’10
Concern has also been voiced frequently in the House of Commons
with numerous requests to the Government for a statement on the
action which it proposes to take.” The Government has stated its
concern 12 and recently characterized water pollution a “matter which
must receive
increased attention from federal, provincial and
municipal governments”.’ 3 The provinces have also recently recognized
that water pollution requires national attention and coordination and
have agreed to cooperate in establishing a workable set of national
guidelines for pollution control.1 4
As for cost, the pulp and paper industry in Canada was advised
in the autumn of 1968 that it will have to spend a minimum $250
million with annual operating expenses of $40 million to curb effec-
tively the pollution which it is creating. 15 And a United States Federal
Pollution Control Administration officer recently estimated that
Canada must spend at least $100 million annually to combat existing
water pollution. 16
9 “Water Resource Research in Canada”, Special Study No. 5 of the Science
Secretariat, Ottawa, July 1968, p. 4.
10 “A Major Program of Water Resource Research in Canada”, Report No. 8
of the Science Council of Canada, Ottawa, September 1968, p. 16.
11 See House of Commons Debates (Daily Edition), 1968, vol. 113, pp. 926,
1022-23, 1153, 1213-14, 1477. As recently as December 1968 an attempt was
made to establish a Special House Committee to investigate the nature and
extent of pollution in Canada. See ibid., pp. 3834-3843.
12 House of Commons Debates, 1967, vol. I, p. 4.
13 House of Commons Debates (Daily Edition), 1968, vol.
14Kington Whig-Standard, August 3, 1,68 and Globe and Mail, August 10,
1968. More recently, it was announced that the Ontario Government will establish
a commission to study pollution in the province. See Globe and Mail, December
11, 1968.
.13, p. 8.
15 Globe and Mail, September 17, 1968.
16 Kingston Whig-Standard, August 7, ,1968.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
CVol. 15
Only in the last few years has air pollution in the United States
been accorded the status of an urgent situation. It required such
dramatic events as the air inversion phenomenon over New York
City causing death to a number of inhabitants to force the realization
that air pollution is an evil consequence of urbanization, industri-
alization and motorization resulting in
(M) ounting dangers to the public health and welfare, including injury to
agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and deterioration of property,
and hazards to air and ground transportation.l1
Evidence gathered by a Senate Subcommittee in 1963 indicated
that, in addition to an estimated annual damage to agriculture and
property of $11 billion, air pollution was contributing to a large
number of human respiratory diseases.’ 8
7
In 1966, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare produced
additional evidence of the health dangers and made a, strong case
for increased research, concluding that
(T)he problem not only really remains critical, it continues to grow at a
faster rate than our efforts to cope with it. 19
Two years later the President characterized air pollution as the
most critical problem of conservation facing the American nation
and urged Congress to appropriate $128 million to assist in the
struggle for clean air. 20
In Canada, again the problem of air pollution is of lesser pro-
to a situation where
portions but again complacency will lead
contamination of the atmosphere imperils the health in the larger
centers. In answer to criticisms of the Government’s failure to take
positive steps to investigate and control air pollution in Canada, the
Minister of National Health and Welfare last year agreed that the
problem was becoming critical but insisted that the Government
was proceeding to cope with it.21
In March of this year further discussion of the problem occurred
in the House of Commons. One member introduced evidence to show
the cost of air pollution damage in Toronto –
$120 million annually
17 Clean Air Act, P.L. 88-206, 42 U.S.C., s. 1857 et seq.
Is Senate Committee on Public Works, A Study of Pollution – Air, 1963,
pp. 14, 20-21.
10 Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Hearings, June 1966,
pp. 19, 22-53, 56-86.
20 President’s Message on Conservation and Water Management to the United
States Congress, March 8, 1968.
21 House of Commons Debates, 1967, vol. III, pp. 3430-3436.
No. 2]
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
283
and he urged his Government to move rapidly to remedy the blight
–
in Canada’s urban areas.22
That there is a pollution problem in a number of urban areas
in Canada is recognized; the difficulty is that little is being done
to assess its extent and consequences so thait remedial measures
can be ascertained and implemented. 23
Thus far we have been considering the national aspects of
environmental pollution problems in Canada and the United States.
The international aspects of the problems are equally significant,
however, since some of the most serious water and air pollution in
the two countries is found along the boundary between them and in
consequence poses international as well as local and national issues.
Because of the transient nature of water and air, what is domestic
pollution at points along the Great Lakes frequently becomes inter-
national pollution and thus elevates the problem to the realm of
international rights and obligations of states.
the International Joint Commission advised
Evidence of serious pollution in many areas of the boundary
waters from the St. Croix River in the east to the Lake of the
Woods in the west is well documented in a number of studies. As
early as 1918
the
governments that the entire stretch of boundary waters was being
contaminated. 24 Since the Second World War, the Commission has, in
a series of investigations, reported serious conditions of pollution
requiring urgent action in the connecting channels of the Great
Lakes, 25 the St. Croix River, 26 Rainy River 2″ and Lakes Erie, Ontario
and the international section of the St. Lawrence River. 28 The
situation in Lake Erie as found by the IJC reflects the complexity,
magnitude and seriousness of the international water pollution
problem. In its interim report of 1965, the Commission reported that
the Lake was in a state of eutrophication and the situation was
“serious and is deteriorating”. 29 The second report in 1968 indicates
that while some progress has been made on both sides, much research
and improvement remains to be done.30 As if to underscore this
22 House of Commons Debates, 1967-68, vol. VII, pp. 7189-7192.
23 See Ross, “Canadian Air Pollution Control Measures”, National Conference
on Pollution and Our Environment, (Montreal, 1066), Background Paper D 30-3.
24 IJC, Report on Pollution of Boundary Waters, 1,918, p. 51.
25 IJC, Report on Pollution of Boundary Waters, 1050.
26 IJC, Report on the St. Croix River Basin, 1959.
271 IJC, Report on Pollution of Rainy River and Lake of the Woods, 1965.
28 IJC, Interim Reports on Pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the Inter-
national Section of the St. Lawrence River, December 1,965 and August 1968.
29 IJC, Interim Report, 1965, p. 2.
SO IJC, Interim Report, 1968, p. 2.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 15
view, a recent report by the United States Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration confirms that pollution from municipal and
industrial sources is killing Lake Erie (it has deteriorated to the
extent that it has aged 15,000 years beyond its natural age) and only
through major corrective actions taken immediately can the waters
be restored to an acceptable state. The minimum immediate cost of
remedial action is estimated -at $1.3 billion. 31 A similar report was
issued this year advising that industry and government would have
to spend about $300 million in order to provide satisfactory water
quality standards for Lake Ontario and the international section
of the St. Lawrence River.32
Other recent examples of critical boundary waters pollution
incidents are the spring flushout of the Buffalo River into the
Niagara River,33 the fish kill this past summer on the Presqu’Isle
River between Maine and New Brunswick 34 and the recent allegations
by Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan that its sister city across the St.
Marys River in Ontario was causing transboundary pollution. 35
While the extent of transboundary air pollution is not nearly
so great as water pollution, it is a serious problem where it does
exist. The nature of the hazard in the industrial belt along the
to the governments in 1960.
Detroit River was reported by the IC
The Commission found air contamination on both sides of the river
to be serious, causing health and economic injuries. 36 It pointed
out that the major sources of such pollution were not the vessels
on the river but the land-based industrial, domestic and transportation
activities. 37 The greater problem has now been recognized by the
governments in their recent reference to the Commission.3
8
The problems of international environmental pollution are not
peculiar to North America. Although transboundary air pollution
does not appear at this time as a significant issue outside North
America, water pollution is a problem of major concern in Europe.
3 1 Lake Erie Report: A Plan for Water Pollution Control, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, August 1968.
See esp. pp. 1-9, 12146, 67-82, 85.
32 Water Pollution Problems and Improvement Needs: Lake Ontario and St.
Lawrence River Basins, U.S. Department of the Interior and New York State
Department of Health, June 1068, pp. 1110-112.
33 The International Joint Commission in Action, XX External Affairs 383,
at p. 384 (No. 9, September 1968).
34 Globe and Mail, July 10, 1968.
35 Kingston Whig-Standard, October 26, 1968.
36 IJC, Report on Pollution of the Atmosphere, 1960, pp. 3-4.
37 Ibid., p. 7.
38 IJC, Docket No. 85, Terms of Reference, September 23, 1966.
No. 2]
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
285
This was made abundantly clear at a conference on water pollution
problems in Europe convened by the United Nations regional com-
mission in 1961.39 River basins such as the Rhine, Moselle, Saar and
Lake Constance have become seriously polluted, necessitating inter-
national action to combat the problem. 40 Indeed, the problems of
international environmental pollution have acquired enough signifi-
cance that Sweden in 1968 proposed that the problems be studied
generally by the United Nations.41
The magnitude and importance of the national and resulting
international aspects of environmental contamination are clear enough
and some states have recognized the need for action to curtail the
consequent social and economic injuries. But what is being done
to effect realistic treatment and control of environmental pollution?
What laws are being developed to enforce standards of quality
considered acceptable in the national and international communities?
What machinery is being created to promote and coordinate research,
to formulate standards of quality and to police the activities of those
responsible for contaminating the environment?
We will consider briefly recent developments generally at the
international level and then consider the practice which is evolving
between Canada and the United States.
II. International Rules Relating to Pollution Control
Laws relating to the uses of international rivers are rudimentary
and, in any modern context of international water resources develQp-
ment, embryonic. Such was evidently the case when Canada and
the United States set out to negotiate an agreement for development
of the Columbia River with one side contending for application of
the so-called Harmon Doctrine and the other invoking the doctrine
of prior appropriation. Since no general agreement could be reached
on the existence of a principle of international law governing the
sharing of waters for purposes of a relatively old use such as power
development, it is not surprising that little evidence would exist as
39 Conference on Water Pollution Problems in Europe, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe, Proceedings,
(3 vols.), (Geneva, 1901).
40 See Garretson, A.H., et al., eds., The Law of International Drainage
Basins, (New York, 1967), pp. 105-06; “Control of River Pollution by Industry”,
the International Institute of Administrative Sciences,
General Report of
(Brussels, 1965), pp. 60-64.
41 Canada and the United Nations, 1968, Department of External Affairs
Statements and Speeches, No. 68/15, October 9, i1968. The General Assembly
subsequently adopted a resolution convening a conference on the human environ-
ment for 1972. See New York Times, Dec. 4, 1968.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 15
the basis for a common agreement on the international rules relating
to pollution control, a use of much more recent significance in both
the domestic and international spheres.
Two major studies which have paralleled each other over the
last decade, and which have set forth their conclusions during the
last two years, have examined in detail the practice of states in
the uses of international rivers and offer significant contributions
to the development of international legal rules governing the uses
of international rivers generally and the control of water pollution
in particular.
Jerome Lipper, writing the conclusions of the International Rivers
Research Project of the New York University School of Law, observes
that while the law governing utilization of international rivers has
really developed only very recently, the weight of evidence
(E)ndorses the limited sovereignty principle which embraces equitable
utilization or, as it is sometimes termed, equitable apportionment, with
respect to both contiguous and successive international rivers. 42
This position was confirmed by the prestigious International
Law Association in 1966 after ten years of research and international
discussion. In the Helsinki Rules adopted by the Association it was
asserted as the “key principle of international (water) law” that
(E),ach basin State is entitled, within its territory to a reasonable and
equitable share in the beneficial uses of the waters of an international
drainage basin. 43
Flowing from this fundamental principle of equitable utilization,
the Helsinki Rules assert that on every riparian state in an inter-
national drainage basin there is a positive obligation to prevent
new or increased water pollution (defined in physical terms) 44 which
would cause substantial injury to a co-riparian state and a qualified
obligation to abate existing pollution with similar adverse conse-
quences. 45 The legal consequences of a failure to meet these inter-
national obligations are in the first case a mandatory cessation of
the wrongful activity and payment of adequate compensation, 4 and
in the second situation a duty to enter forthwith into negotiations
to effect an equitable settlement. 47
42 Garretson, A.H., et al., The Law of International Drainage Basins, pp. 62-63.
43 Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers. Inter-
national Law Association, (London, 1967), p. 9 (Article IV).
441bid., p. 17 (Article IX).
45 Ibid., pp. 19-20.
46 One must note the caveat which the Committee placed on this principle.
See Helsinki Rules, p. 25.
47 Helsinki Rules, p. 24 (Article XI).
No. 2]
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
287
As the International Rivers Committee itself observed, of all
the principles governing uses of international rivers, the ones relating
to control of water pollution posed the greatest difficulty in achieving
agreement. 48 This is reflected in the compromisory nature of some
of the language employed in Articles X and XI of the Helsinki
particularly in relation to the issue of existing pollution
Rules –
and the remedies pertaining thereto.
While enunciation of the general principle of sic utere tuo ut
alienum non laedas49 as applicable to matters of international water
pollution is eminently reasonable and properly supportable on the
basis of international jurisprudence and state practice 5 –
after
all, is not international pollution a violation by one state of another
state’s territorial integrity? –
it is perhaps more questionable that
the legal remedies asserted to exist are either generally recognized
in international law as applicable in pollution cases or, more im-
portantly, are the best means of dealing with the problem in many
cases.
One might also question the efficacy of drawing a distinction
between existing and new pollution since both –
if they are of a
nature causing substantial damage –
are in need of abatement and
prevention with equal urgency. Better, perhaps, it is to draw a
distinction between pollution in a boundary water basin where more
than one state is contributing to the problem and the case of a
transboundary stream where the upstream riparian is clearly causing
injury downstream in the lower riparian state’s territory. Here
it is perhaps more realistic to speak of an obligation to negotiate
an equitable settlement in the first case and of compensation and
injunctive relief in the second case.
Anthony Lester, analyzing the law and practice of international
pollution control for the International Rivers Research Project,
emphasized at the outset that “the relevant international law (is)
not… well-developed”. 51 While he believed that international law
asserted an obligation on one state to avoid causing serious injury
to a co-riparian state in using international waters and a right of
the injured state to seek injunctive and compensatory relief in such
cases,52 Lester observed that one could find little evidence of detailed
application of these rules. 5
48Ibid., p. 5.
490 One must so use his own as not to do injury to another.
60 See Helsinki Rules, pp. 20-22; Garretson, A.H., et al., The Law of Inter-
national Drainage Basins, pp. 99-100.
53 Garretson, A.H. et al., The Law of International Drainage Basins, p. 94.
52 Ibid., p. 102.
53 Ibid., p. 109.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Val. 15
Turning to the matter of progressive development of international
law in the area of international water pollution, Lester emphasized
the essential importance of recognizing the need, not so much for the
development of specific rules stating rights and obligations of states
which can be adjudicated to resolution in particular cases, but for
the development of procedures whereby an international agency is
established to evolve a common plan of action among the co-riparian
states for pollution control.5 4 This, more often than not, will be the
effective solution for which states will be seeking; not compensation
for injuries sustained but a mutual program of pollution control and
abatement whereby each state will be informed of the steps which
are necessary to eliminate the international wrong. Granted, there
will be cases in which one state is clearly and solely responsible
for the transboundary water pollution; such was the case with the
air pollution in the Trail Smelter Arbitration. In such instances it is
important to develop as applicable the principles providing for legal
remedies such as compensation and injunctive relief as well as the
obligation to submit the matter to adjudication. However, in many
cases the question will be one of determining the causes of pollution
in each state, the degree to which each state is contributing to the
pollution, the adverse transboundary effects which the pollution is
occasioning and the most effective remedial measures which the
states may take to abate and control the pollution.
While it is not easy to identify many international agreements
which create a specific obligation on one state to prevent or abate
water pollution which is causing injury in a second state of a nature
which gives rise to enforceable rights, 5
there are a substantial
number of agreements whereunder the parties express an obligation
to take unilateral or cooperative measures to limit or control activities
which cause international pollution. Such agreements have become
increasingly common in recent years particularly in Europe, and
in many instances joint machinery is created to facilitate cooperative,
investigative, abatement and control measures. 0
54 Ibid., pp. 109-110.
55 See, for example, the Agreement between Germany and Denmark for the
settlement of questions relating to watercourses on the frontier, (1922), 10
L.N.T.S. 187; U.N. Doc. A/5409, p. 284.
56 For illustrations of agreements which provide for one or both of these
principles, see U.N. Doc. A/5409, (April 15, 1963), Legal Problms Relating
to the Utilization and Use of International Rivers, pp. 83, 138, 234, 244, 245,
249, 266, 277, 281, 292, 425, 435, 438, 461, 467. See also, Whiteman, Digest
of International Law, vol. III, (Washington, 1964), pp. 1043-1045 and Garretson,
A.H. et al., The Law of International Drainage Basins, pp. .102-106.
No. 2]
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
289
It
is thus submitted that it is important in the development
of international rules governing the uses of international fresh
waters to seek out and enunciate principles which place an obligation
on states to avoid pollution which causes serious injury in the
territory of others and which specify the particular remedies which
may be claimed in such circumstances. But it is equally important
that we also seek to establish a regime whereby states recognize
the obligation to cooperate to mitigate the causes of international
water pollution.
Virtually nothing has been developed by way of international
rules relating to transboundary air pollution, essentially because
apart from North America it has not become a significant inter-
national problem. It is interesting to note however that the United
Nations will be considering the question along with that of water
pollution during the current session. 57
It is submitted that the law as it is developing in relation to
water pollution has equal application to cases of air pollution. In
their nature there is little difference between the two types of
pollution. Both result from human conduct, both may result in
serious health and economic injury and both move freely across
boundaries and are difficult to identify in their sources where there
is a concentration of population and industry on both sides of an
international boundary.
Consequently, a state may not permit air pollution where the
result is to cause serious injury in a contiguous state and, where
such activity is occurring, there is an obligation to take measures
necessary to abate and control the pollution. Similarly, where –
as
will be the case in many instances –
air pollution is generated on
both sides of the boundary, the two states are obligated to cooperate
in controlling the transboundary effects.
III. Canada and the United States: International Pollution Control
Having outlined in a general way the development of international
rules relating to pollution control, it is necessary to consider more
specifically what Canada and the United States have been doing
to recognize and give effect to the international obligation to abate
and control ransboundary pollution. While the main concern is with
the international aspects of the problems, it is obvious that due to
the nature of air and water pollution along the boundary one
5 7 Canada and the United Nations, 1968, Department of External Affairs
Statements and Speeches, No. 68/15, October 9, 1968.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 15
cannot logically separate the domestic from the international aspects.
Similarly, in considering the measures being taken to deal with
international pollution, the unilateral domestic action of the various
governments in each state is very relevant to determine if the
international obligations are being met.
Constitutionally, in both Canada and the United States, jurisdiction
over water and air pollution is divided between the local and national
levels of government with the major responsibility seemingly resting
on the local legislatures.58 It is thus necessary to consider first what
is being done at the local levels and the relevance of these activities
to the international problems.
In the three local jurisdictions considered, the states of New York
and Michigan and the province of Ontario, major legislation has been
enacted in recent years designed to cope with water pollution matters
within the states and province. In New York State in 1961, the Water
Resources Commission was created to exercise general supervision
over state waters, including their quality.59 The year 1965 saw
the adoption of a comprehensive Pure Waters Program designed
“to maintain reasonable standards of purity of waters of the
state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof,
the propagation and protection of [fish, birds and animals], and
the industrial development of the state…” 60 As amended
to
1968, the legislation empowers
to classify all
waters within the territorial limits of the state and to specify
purity standards to be achieved and maintained for each cate-
gory. The Department of Health is empowered
to enforce these
standards
including court action,
and penalties for non-observance include revocation of the water
use permits which all users must obtain. Financial assistance
is made available through federal and state grants to enable munici-
palities to construct facilities designed to achieve the pure waters
standards. In addition, tax laws provide incentives for industries
through various proceedings
the Commission
58 For a discussion of the United States constitutional position see Edelman,
Federal Air and Water Control: The Application of the Commerce Power,
(1-964-65), 33 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1067; Birmingham, The Federal Government
and Air and Water Pollution, (1968), 23 Business Lawyer 467. The Canadian
position is dealt with by Laskin, “Jurisdictional Framework for Water Manage-
ment”, Resources for Tomorrow Conference, (Montreal, 1961), Background
Papers, vol. I, pp. 211-225 and Landis, “Legal Control in Canada of Pollution
in the Great Lakes Drainage Basin”, Proceedings of the Great Lakes Water
Resources Conference, (Toronto, 1968), pp. 158-200.
59 Chapter 490, N.Y. State Laws of 1961.
6O New York State, Public Health Law, 1954, c. 879, Article 12, s. 1200.
This policy statement was carried over from earlier enactments.
No. 2]
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
291
which are required by the quality standards to construct waste
treatment facilities. 61
Michigan for many years has had a Water Resources Commission
“to guard against the pollution of lakes and streams within the
State”. 2 With numerous amendments in recent years recognizing
the need for increased state action, the legislation vests the Com-
mission with full powers over pollution control of the state’s waters
including the contiguous Great Lakes. It
is empowered to inves-
tigate the quality of the waters, to make rules, to issue regulations
and to enforce the provisions of the Water Resources Commission
Act. It prescribes the necessary pollution control standards for each
area and issues enforceable orders for their compliance. The Com-
mission may commence a court action to compel abatement or con-
trol of pollution by any offender.
Recent amendments made provision for 91 State Water Pollution
Control Fund to assist municipalities in construction of treatment
facilities 4 and provided tax incentives for industrial concerns con-
structing similar works.65 In 1968, municipalities were required to
file long-range pollution control plans 66 and the electors were asked
to approve a state bond issue of $335 million to build municipal treat-
ment facilities.67 Of significance, too, was the enactment of a law
providing for control of water pollution by oil spills resulting from
drilling operations in the Great Lakes and connecting waters. 8
In 1956, Ontario established the Ontario Water Resources Com-
mission, giving it comprehensive jurisdiction over water management
in the province including problems of pollution. 9 The legislation
prohibits generally any pollution which might impair the quality
of water in the province and empowers the Commission to seek an
injunction to enjoin such activities.70 In addition the Commission is
authorized to construct treatment facilities for municipalities, 1 to
61 New York State, Public Health Law, 1954, c. 879 as amended to 1968,
Article 12, ss. 1200-1236c. See also, Hennigan, “Pollution of New York State
Waters”, Symposium Proceedings on the Fresh Water of New York State:
Its Conservation and Use, (Buffalo, 1966), pp. 42-45.
62 Mich. Stat. Ann., s. 3.3 ‘and s. 3.521 et seq.
63 Mich. Stat. Ann., s. 3.521 et seq.
64Ibid., s. a.533(51).
65Ibid., s. 7.793(51).
66 Mich., Act No. 75 of the Public Acts of 1968.
67 Mich., Act No. 76 of the Public Acts of 1968.
68 Mich., Act No. 98 of the Public Acts of 1967.
60 Ontario Water Resources Commission Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 281, as amended
to 1966.
70 Ibid., ss. 26 & 27.
71 Ibid., s. 16.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 15
investigate water pollution and its causes 72 and to make regulations
prescribing standards of water quality, operating standards for sew-
age works, and rules for discharge of wastes from boats.73
Despite the establishment of these local regulatory agencies which
have set about to study the problems of water pollution in their
jurisdictions and to establish standards or guidelines for water quali-
ty, the problems of water pollution in their contiguous boundary
waters have continued to develop. The Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration has set out a number of the shortcomings of
the authorities in combatting pollution in Lake Erie. The report
emphasizes that “the cleanup of Lake Erie is less a problem of
engineering than it is a problem of diverse, inadequate, and un-
wieldly changing governmental policies, funding and management”, 74
and points to the need for long-range pollution control programs,
large scale research, enforcement of standards and international
cooperation from the province of Ontario. 75 The recent reports of
the IJC indicate that pollution and eutrophication are also continuing
to develop in Lake Ontario and the international St. Lawrence Riv-
er 71 and that the condition of the Niagara River is still unsatis-
factory.77
It would appear that in order to cope effectively with the problems
of water pollution in the boundary waters it is essential that the
national governments take an active role. Such participation is im-
perative for a number of reasons. The magnitude of the task, both
in terms of investigating the causes and nature of the pollution
and in terms of the cost of clean-up, necessitates the expenditure
of sums of money which are beyond the budgets of the local govern-
ments. The fact that the waters involved relate to more than one
jurisdiction suggests that coordination of activities in the various
jurisdictions is necessary. It also suggests the need for ensuring
that there is a degree of uniformity both in the standards of quality
72 Ibid., s. 26.
73 Ibid., s. 47. The Government announced on November 7, 1968 that regulations
had been issued for discharge of sewage from boats. In 1967 the Commission
issued new Policy Guidelines for Water Quality Control Objectives but has
not yet established the new standards thereunder.
74 Lake Erie Report: A Plan for Water Pollution Control, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, August 1968,
Foreward.
75 Ibid., pp. 12-16.
76 IJC, Second Interim Report on the Pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario
and the International Section of the St. Lawrence River, August 1968, p. 2.
77 The International Joint Commission in Action, XX External Affairs 383,
at p. 386-87 (No. 9, September 1968).
No. 2]
REGENT DEVEDLOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
293
control which are set and in the enforcement of these standards.
Finally, although the sources of the pollution may be local in origin,
the fact that they are causing pollution of an international nature
dictates an active concern on the part of the national governments.
As a result of a series of legislative enactments by Congress in
recent years, the United States Government has asserted a very
active and comprehensive jurisdiction over water pollution control
in interstate and international waters.78 Under this legislation the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has authority to
require states to establish water quality standards for interstate,
and international streams and lakes, to make available substantial
federal funds both for research programs and for state abatement
and control programs and to proceed with enforcement actions in
cases where there is a failure to comply with quality standards
established for interstate and international waters.
This legislation is of significance for it is a recognition by Con-
gress of the need for effective involvement of the federal govern-
ment in the task of pollution control in the areas where the local
governments are unable or unwilling to carry out the full tasks of
pollution control either alone or in cooperation with one another.
More importantly, the legislation recognizes the international re-
sponsibility of the United States to effect measures designed to
control pollution with transboundary consequences. This is provided
for in the following terms:
that any pollution
in a foreign country
the health or welfare of persons
Whenever the Secretary (of the Interior), upon receipt of reports, surveys,
or studies from any duly constituted international agency, has reason to
believe
[of interstate or navigable waters] which
endangers
is
occurring, and the Secretary of State requests him to abate such pollution,
he shall give formal notification thereof [to the appropriate state and
interstate pollution control agencies] and promptly call a conference…
if he believes that such pollution is occurring in sufficient quantity to
warrant such action. The Secretary, through the Secretary of State, shall
invite the foreign country which may be adversely affected by the pollution
to attend and participate in the conference, and the representative of
such country shall, for the purposes of the conference and any further
proceedings resulting from such conference, have all the rights of a State
water pollution control agency. 79
This procedural arrangement for control of international water
pollution is of course reciprocal in the sense that the foreign nation
must provide “essentially the same rights” to the United States with
78 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, 3 U.S.C., s. 466 et seq, as
(1966).
(1961), P.L. 89-234, (1965) and P.L. 89-753,
amended by P.L. 87-88,
79 3 U.S.C., s. 466g(d) (2).
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Val. 15
respect to the prevention and control of water pollution occurring in
that country. 80
In Canada, there is no comprehensive federal legislation relating
to water pollution. Seemingly of the view that Parliament’s juris-
diction over water pollution matters is strictly limited, the govern-
ment has proceeded to assert its jurisdiction in a piecemeal and
haphazard fashion. The main areas of control relate to navigation
and shipping, fisheries and migratory birds. The Navigable Waters
Protection Act prohibits the depositing in such waters of materials
which would obstruct navigation.81 The Canada Shipping Act au-
thorizes the making of regulations for the protection of Canadian
waters from pollution by ships. 2 While oil pollution regulations were
adopted in 1957 and 1960, no sewage and garbage prevention regu-
lations have been promulgated. The Fisheries Act has provisions
which prohibit the pollution of waters to the detriment of the fish 83
and similar provisions are contained in the Migratory Birds Con-
vention Act to protect waterfowl.8 4 In addition to these specific
provisions prohibiting water pollution in particular circumstances,
there are enactments providing for limited assistance to local gov-
ernments in constructing water conservation works, 3 sewage treat-
ment facilities and tax incentives to industry to construct pollution
control works. A number of federal departments also are actively
engaged in research and control programs, including collaboration
with the International Joint Commission in its work.”0
The fact remains, however, despite these activities, that federally
there exists no single comprehensive program of pollution control
directed to uniformity or coordination of standards or research or
to providing for financial assistance to the local governments. Such
legislation was proposed, along the lines of the federal enactments
in the United States, in the Throne Speech of May 1967 87 but no
action has yet been taken despite a subsequent announcement by
80 Ibid.
81 Navigable Waters Protection Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 41.
82 Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 29, as amended by 4-5 Eliz. II,
S.C. 1956, vol. II, c. 34, s. 25.
83 Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 119.
S Migratory Birds Convention Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 179.
8-5 Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, 1-2 Eliz. II, S.C. 1952-53, c. 21.
86 See, “The Participation of the Government of Canada in the Investigation
and Abatement of Water Pollution”, National Conference on Pollution and
Our Environment, (Montreal, 1966), Background Papers, vol. 2, B5-1. See
also, Canadian Tax Foundation, Local Finance Paper No. 20, (July, 1968),
pp. 5-6.
8THouse of Commons Debates, 1967, vol. I, p. 4.
r1o. 2]
REGENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
295
Energy, Mines and Resources Minister Pepin in 1968 that federal
legislation was forthcoming. 8 The major cause of reluctance on the
part of the government to enact legislation appears to be the view
that, with the exception of the specific areas mentioned above, juris-
diction over the matter of water pollution rests with the provinces.
While it is clear that generally this is the case, 89 it does not follow
that the extraprovincial aspects of the problem are within provincial
jurisdiction. Indeed, in relation to the international aspects of the
problem, it seems quite clear that Parliament possesses jurisdiction
to compel abatement and control, including the establishment and
enforcement of standards, the conducting of research and the coor-
dination of agencies seeking to deal with the problem. Canada has
recognized the international obligation in relation to transboundary
pollution both in law 0o and in practice 91 but has failed thus far to
legislate effective means of carrying out this obligation domestically.
Canada and the United States, as early as 1909, formally recog-
nized their mutual obligation to prevent pollution of boundary and
transboundary waters to the injury of health or property on the
other side of the boundary.9 2 Although this international prohibi-
tion was made a part of the domestic laws of both countries inne-
diately, no specific provisions for administration or enforcement of
the obligation were made.
In practice, the International Joint Commission, also created by
the Boundary Waters Treaty, has been employed as the international
agency in water pollution cases. Through references of the problems
by the two governments to the IJC under the provisions of Article IX
of the Treaty, the Commission has been charged with the task of
investigating the transboundary water pollution situations and rec-
ommending to the two governments the necessary course of action.
Following adoption of the Commission’s report by the governments,
sSee Canadian Tax Foundation, Local Finance Paper No. 20, (July, 1968),
pp. 5-6.
89 See Laskin, “Jurisdiction Framework for Water Management”, Resources
for Tomorrow Conference, (Montreal, 1061), Background Papers, vol. I, pp.
211-225; Landis, “Legal Control in Canada of Pollution in the Great Lakes
Drainage Basin”, Proceedings of the Great Lakes Water Resources Conference,
Toronto, 1968, pp. 158-200.
90 The Boundary Waters Treaty Act, 1-2 Geo. V, S.C. 1911, c. 28.
91 See the various references which have been made to the IJC on boundary
waters pollution matters. The Government of Canada has each time adopted the
recommendations reported by the IJC.
92 Treaty Between the United States and Great Britain Relating to Boundary
Waters, and Questions Arising Between the United States and Canada, (1909),
U.S.T.S. 548; Redmond Treaties, vol. III, (Washington, 19923), 2607-08; S.C.
1911, c. 28, Article IV.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 15
the Conmission has been charged with the subsequent task of super-
vising compliance by water users with the water quality standards
which it has recommended. This task, as we shall see later, is
extremely difficult since the Commission has no powers of enforce-
ment and no machinery exists at the domestic levels which it may
invoke in aid of its task.
In the area of international air pollution control there is no
specific treaty provision between Canada and the United States
obligating the countries to prevent or control transboundary flows
of air contaminants. However, the international tribunal in the Trail
Smelter Arbitration laid down the fundamental rule, accepted by
both states, that
(N) o state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such
a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another
or the property or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequences
and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence. 93
This obligation has been recognized in practice by the two
governments in the two references on problems of boundary air
pollution which have been referred to the IJC for investigation and
recommendations for remedial measures to be taken by the federal
governments. 94 While one cannot imply from these references any
recognition of an obligation to pay compensation for injuries occa-
sioned in the other state, it does seem clear that the two countries
recognize the obligation to cooperate in measures designed to as-
certain the sources and extent of the boundary pollution and to take
measures to abate and control such pollution where injury is occa-
sioned.
Much of what has already been said of water pollution control
activities applies equally to the matter of air pollution control. Michi-
gan, 95 New York State 9 6 and Ontario 9 7 all have active programs of
air pollution abatement and control with a board or commission re-
sponsible for establishing standards of quality and for enforcing
the standards.98 In the United States, Congress has superimposed
93 The Trail Smelter Arbitration, (.198-1941), 3 U.N.R.I.A.A. 1906, at p. 1965.
94 See, IJC Docket No. 61, Pollution of the Atmosphere in the Detroit River
Area and Docket No. 85, Air Pollution Reference.
95 A Digest of State Air Pollution Laws (1967 edition), pp. 272-2&1.
96 New York, Public Health Law, 1954, c. 879, as amended to 1968, article
(1967
is
12A, s. 1271 et seq. See also, A Digest of State Air Pollution Laws
edition), pp. 360-363. It is noteworthy that the Pollution Control Board
directed to cooperate with international agencies in abatement programs.
9TAir Pollution Control Act, 15-16 Eliz. II, S.O. 1067, c. 2.
98For an account of the Ontario air pollution control program see Martin,
“Air Pollution Control and Some of its Effects on Industry”, Proceedings
of the Ontario Pollution Control Conference, (Toronto, 1967), p. 79.
No. 2]
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
297
on the states programs a comprehensive federal scheme designed
to complement and bolster the local activities and to regulate par-
ticularly those areas of air pollution with which the states are not
effectively coping. Under the federal legislation the Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare is given powers substantially the
same as those of the Secretary of the Interior in relation to water
pollution, including authority to designate interstate air quality con-
trol regions, to establish guidelines for pollution control and to fix
standards for air quality if the states fail to do so within a given
time. The Secretary is further empowered to commence proceedings
against offenders and where he receives a report from an interna-
tional agency that air pollution originating in the United States is
endangering the health or welfare of persons in a foreign state, he
must proceed with an enforcement conference to which the foreign
country is invited.99
In Canada, federal government involvement in air pollution abate-
ment and control has been minimal. Again believing this to be
essentially a matter of provincial jurisdiction,0 0 Parliament has
confined itself to dealing with control of smoke emissions from
ships 101 and railway operations. 10 2 In addition, some research is
carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare and
the National Research Council and some financial assistance to pro-
vincial programs is made. 0 3 However, despite the increasing need
the federal government has given no
for research and control,’0
indication of its intention to provide a national framework for ac-
tion although it seems clear that Parliament could exercise a much
broader jurisdiction than it presently does.
99 Air Quality Act of 1967, P.L. 904148. See particularly s. 108 (d) (1) (D).
As with international water pollution control, this provision may be invoked
only where the foreign state grants the United Sates similar rights to seek
enforcement.
100Ross, “Canadian Air Pollution Control Measures”, National Conference
on Pollution and Our Environment, (Montreal, 1966), Background Papers,
vol. 3, D30-3.
101 Canada Shipping Act, as amended, 9-10 Eliz. II, S.C. 1860-61, vol. 1, c. 32,
s. 28, and regulations issued in 1964 and 1966.
102 Railway Act, R.S.C. 1052, c. 234; General Order, No. 838 of the Board of
Transport Commissioners, February 1959.
103 See Katz, “Regional Air Pollution Control”, National Conference on
Pollution and Our Environment, (Montreal, 1966), Background Papers, vol. 2,
B 17-2-2. See also, Canadian Tax Foundation, Local Finance Paper No. 20
(July, 1968), p. 6.
104 Anderson, “Effects of Air Contamination on Health”, National Conference
on Pollution and Our Environment, (Montreal, 1966), Background Papers,
vol. 1, A3-2.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 15
With regard to transboundary air pollution, the International
Joint Commission is the only device which exists for coping with the
problem and it operates under the same limitations as it does in
water pollution cases. It may investigate the problem and recom-
mend remedial measures, but no machinery charged with responsi-
bility for enforcing its recommended standards of air quality exists.
IV. Limits on Institutional Arrangements: Proposals for Change
The foregoing survey of the laws and machinery for dealing with
problems of environmental pollution in Canada and the United States
indicates a number of weaknesses in their effectiveness – particularly
in relation to the control and abatement of transboundary pollution.
While the various jurisdictions in dealing with pollution as a do-
mestic matter also naturally are seeking to prevent or control the
transboundary effects, this latter aspect is not necessarily the es-
sential focus of the program. Consequently, problems arise in relation
to coordination of research activities and investigations, allocation
of financial resources, establishment of uniform standards of quality
control and means of enforcement, and while the program in a
particular jurisdiction may be satisfactory for the needs of that
jurisdiction, there is no assurance that the program will be effective
in its contribution to the solution of the international problem.
Given the fact that international legal rules concerning trans-
boundary pollution, even if they did exist with a degree of clarity
and precision, would not provide in most cases the solution to
problems of international pollution, it is imperative to emphasize
and develop machinery by which the states proceed to carry out, on
a cooperative basis, measures to prevent pollution which causes in-
jury across the frontier.
The joint international agency approach is emphasized by Anthony
Lester in his chapter on pollution control 105 and Ely and Wolman
devote a chapter to the discussion of international agencies employed
to deal with international river basin development and use. 00 Like-
wise, the International Law Association recognizes the importance
of joint agencies in seeking solutions to international river prob-
lems. 0 7
Canada and the United States have, in recent years, employed
the International Joint Commission as the joint agency for han-
105 Garretson, A.H. et al, The Law of International Drainage Basins, pp.
109-110.
100 Ibid., c. 4.
107 Helsinki Rules, 1967, pp. 45-50.
No. 23
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
P99
dling problems of the transboundary environment. In seven instances
since the Second World War, the two governments have referred
to the Commission for investigation and report with recommendation
for government action cases of water and air pollution along
the boundary. 0 8 In each of these studies where the Commission
has reported, it has spelled out a series of “Objectives” for quality
control which it recommends for adoption by the governments.
It has further requested and been granted authority to exercise
a continuing supervision over the particular area with the special
tasks of urging offenders to comply with the standards which
it has set out and of reporting to the appropriate government au-
thorities further action which they should take to ensure compliance
with the standards. I 9
In its role as an international pollution control agency, however,
the Commission faces a number of limitations which tend to impair
its effectiveness. The IJC, by the terms of the Boundary Waters
Treaty, has no specific jurisdiction over boundary pollution matters
and consequently no control over the timing, extent or nature of
the investigations which it undertakes. It must await a reference
from the two governments, agreement on the terms of which may
occasion a lengthy delay in commencing the study. Once it is seized
of a reference, the Commission, while it has the ability to draw upon
personnel of the governments to conduct it own studies and is au-
thorized to make use of information gathered by other agencies
engaged in related studies, has no power to direct or coordinate the
research or information-gathering which is being done by domestic
agencies at the various levels of government. This may mean not
only duplication of activities but also a lack of communication among
the various bodies on what is being done or, indeed, on what objec-
tives are being sought, viewing the study from the international
level.
Another, and perhaps the most fundamental difficulty, is the
lack of power to give effect to the standards and measures of con-
trol which are recommended by the Commission following completion
108 See, IJC, Dockets No. 54 & 55, Pollution of Boundary Waters: Connecting
Channels References, (1946 & 1148), Docket No. 71, St. Croix River Basin
Reference, (1955), Docket No. 73, Pollution of Rainy River and Lake of the
Woods Reference, (1959), Docket No. 81, Red River Pollution Reference, (1964),
Docket No. 83, Great Lakes Pollution Reference, (1964), Docket No. 61, Detroit
River Air Pollution Reference, (1949), Docket No. 85, Boundary Air Pollution
Reference, (1966).
109 For an example of the terms of the Commission’s recommendations, see
IJO, Report on Pollution of Boundary Waters, 1950, pp. 9-10.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 15
of its study and subsequently in the exercise of its surveillance
function. This problem may be viewed from two levels. On the inter-
national plane, the Commission of course possesses no powers of
compulsion either in terms of obliging the federal governments to
implement and enforce its recommendations or in terms of imposing
its standards on the local governments or individuals who are causing
the pollution. At the domestic level, while the two federal govern-
ments may “adopt” the recommendations of the Commission setting
out the remedial action which the IJC deems necessary to control the
international problem, in the absence of legislative enactments to
effect these, their implementation and enforcement remain academic.
The Commission is thus dependent upon the will of the local govern-
ments to adopt and enforce the standards which it has set and, in
the absence of this, upon its own ability to persuade the governments
and the industries and municipalities of the desirability of complying
with the Commission’s standards. And, even if one jurisdiction does
give effect to the standards, there is no assurance that others, shar-
ing the same water or air region, will do likewise.
What might be done to strengthen the joint machinery which is
established to ensure the observance of the international obligations
resting on Canada and the United States to prevent injurious trans-
boundary pollution?
To advocate the establishment of a supranational pollution control
authority is, as Ely and Wolman point out, essentially utopian.110
The Government of the Netherlands proposed such a body to control
pollution onthe Rhine River but this was rejected by the co-riparian
states and, as Judge Kulz indicated, the pollution control com-
missions in Europe are designed essentiadly to conduct studies,
gather information and make recommendations to the national gov-
ernments for administrative and legislative measures to be taken.”‘
It is not likely for a number of reasons that Canada or the United
States would be prepared to vest broad powers over international
pollution control in an international agency whether it be the IJC
or some other body. However, it is possible to suggest several im-
portant measures which might be considered which would make
the role of the agency more effective in dealing with environmental
pollution- problems along the boundary.
First, the governments could add a clause to the Boundary Waters
Treaty affirming with regard to transboundary air pollution the same
110 Garretson A.H. et al., The Law of International Drainage Basins, p. 145.
11i Report of the Fiftieth Conference of the International Law Association,
(Brussels, 1962), pp. 417-18.
No. 2
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
301
obligation which is spelled out in relation to water pollution. In rela-
tion to both obligations the two governments might undertake to
give domestic effect by enacting the necessary legislation.
At the same time the governments could vest the Commission
with jurisdiction over all matters of boundary water and air pollution
which were having transboundary effects in relation both to initi-
ating the investigation without awaiting a reference and to coor-
dinating the various bodies involved in the study.
The Commission should also be empowered to exercise supervision
over the implementation of its recommendations by the users of the
resource which has been the subject of the Commission’s study and
be authorized to report offenders to the federal Attorney-General
of the appropriate national government with recommendations for
the action to be taken. This power could include in a formal manner
the one now informally employed by the Commission of holding
international public meetings where the Commission reviews the
progress (and lack thereof) being made by the various local agencies,
industries and municipalities to achieve the standards of quality
for boundary air or water established by the IJC.
The reporting of violations to the federal Attorneys-General to
be effective would necessitate the two governments securing legis-
lation which would give statutory effect to the standards for quality
control enunciated by the IJC from time to time and enable the
Attorney-General to launch proceedings to compel compliance with
the standards.
Many of the foregoing proposals would be meaningless if effected
in the absence of a substantial program of financial aid to assist the
local governments in investigating and remedying the causes of pol-
lution. This has already been implemented in the United States under
the federal laws with beneficial results. In Canada, little incentive is
presently provided by the federal government to the local control
agencies or municipalities. It is essential that the assistance be in-
creased in a manner which will ensure a coordinated attack on
pollution problems from the local to the international level. No level
of government acting alone can deal with the entire problem of
pollution and all levels must appreciate that pollution can no longer
be considered as a part of the price of progress.
