Constitutional Political Economy

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 359–380 | Cite as

Constitutional choice for the control of water pollution

  • Roger E. Meiners
  • Bruce Yandle


Before passage of the Clean Water Act, water pollution was controlled by the common law of nuisance and the law of water rights. Had the common law not been superseded, it might have provided more ecologically sound pollution control than has occurred under the command-and-control statutory regime. The Clean Water Act imposes mechanical definitions and is subject to political interference. In contrast, the principle of the common law lies in its evolutionary and competitive nature, which is consistent with the market process.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, T.L. (ed) (1983)Water Rights: Scarce Resource Allocation, Bureaucracy, and the Environment. San Francisco: Pacific Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Baumol, W. (1972) “On Taxation and Control of Externalities.”American Economic Review 62 (June): 307–322.Google Scholar
  3. Bone, R. (1986) “Normative Theory and Legal Doctrine in American Nuisance Law: 1950–1920.”Southern California Law Review 50: 1101–1226.Google Scholar
  4. Bosso, C. (1987)Pesticides and Politics. University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bovard, J. (1989)The Farm Fiasco. San Francisco: ICS PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J.M. (1969)Cost and Choice. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J.M. (1990) “The Domain of Constitutional Economics.”Constitutional Political Economy 1(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J.M. and G. Tullock (1975) “‘Polluters’ Profit and Political Response: Direct Controls versus Taxes.American Economic Review 65 (March): 139–147.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, P. (1971) “Theories of Water Pollution Litigation.”Wisconsin Law Review: 738–816.Google Scholar
  10. General Accounting Office (1991a)Observations on the EPA and State Enforcement Under the Clean Water Act. GAO/T-REC-91-53 (May 14).Google Scholar
  11. General Accounting Office (1991b)Environmental Enforcement. GAO/RECD-91-166 (June).Google Scholar
  12. Goldfarb, W. (1988)Water Law (2d ed.) 63.Google Scholar
  13. Hahn, R. and R. Stavins (1990) “Incentive-Based Environmental Regulation.”Ecology Law Quarterly 18: 1–42.Google Scholar
  14. Hodas, D. (1988) “Private Actions for Public Nuisance: Common Law Citizen Suits for Relief from Environmental Harm.”Ecology Law Quarterly 16: 883–908.Google Scholar
  15. Jorgensen, E. (ed) (1989)The Poisoned Well: New Strategies for Groundwater Protection.Google Scholar
  16. Menell, P. (1991) “The Limitations of Legal Institutions for Addressing Environmental Risks.”Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(3): 93–113.Google Scholar
  17. Meiners, R. and B. Yandle (eds) (1989)Regulation and the Reagan Era. New York: Holmes & Meier.Google Scholar
  18. Prosser, W. (1955)Torts. (2d ed.) 405.Google Scholar
  19. Rabin, E. (1977) “Nuisance Law: Rethinking Fundamental Assumptions.Virginia Law Review 63: 1299–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Staaf R. and B. Yandle (1991) “Common Law, Statute Law, and Liability Rules.” In: R. Meiners and B. Yandle (eds) (1991)The Economic Consequences of Liability Rules. Westport, CT: Quorum Books: 11–28.Google Scholar
  21. Stavins, R. and A. Jaffe (1990) “Unintended Impacts of Public Investments on Private Decisions: The Depletion of Forested Wetlands.”American Economic Review 80: (June) 337–352.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works (1971)Hearings on Water Pollution Control Legislation. 42d Cong. (Dec. 7–10).Google Scholar

Legal references

  1. Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 60 LW 4176 (1992).Google Scholar
  2. Garland Grain Co. v. D-C Home Owners Improvement Assn., 393 SW2d 635 (Tex. Civ. App., 1965).Google Scholar
  3. Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907).Google Scholar
  4. Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 110 S.Ct. 304 (1989).Google Scholar
  5. Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (1972).Google Scholar
  6. Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981).Google Scholar
  7. Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906).Google Scholar
  8. Restatement (Second) of Torts §821B (1977). Restatement (Second) of Torts §829A.Google Scholar
  9. Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868).Google Scholar
  10. Stoddard v. Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority, 784 F.2d 1200 (1986).Google Scholar
  11. Tennessee v. Champion Int'l Corp., 479 U.S. 1061, 107 S.Ct. 944 (1987).Google Scholar
  12. Texas v. Pankey, 441 F.2d 236 (10th Cir., 1971).Google Scholar
  13. Trevett v. Prison Association, 98 Va. 332, 336; 36 S.E. 373, 374 (1900), quoting H. Wood, 1 Nuisances §427 (3d ed. 1893).Google Scholar
  14. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty, 272 US 365 (1926).Google Scholar
  15. Village of Watsonville v. SCA Services, 426 N.E.2d 824 (1981).Google Scholar
  16. Weston Paper Co. v. Pope, 155 Ind. 394, 57 N.E. 719 (1900).Google Scholar
  17. Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., 208 N.Y. 1, 5, 101 N.E. 805, 806 (1913).Google Scholar
  18. Wood v. Picillo, 433 A.2d 1244 (1982).Google Scholar
  19. 4 Water and Water Rights 45 §30.02(c) (1991 ed.) Charlottesville: Michie.Google Scholar
  20. 5 Water and Water Rights §49.03(b) n. 43 (1991 ed.) Charlottesville: Michie.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© George Mason University 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger E. Meiners
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bruce Yandle
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Legal StudiesClemson UniversityClemson
  2. 2.Center for Policy StudiesClemson UniversityClemson

Personalised recommendations