Free Example of Environmental Rules Essay

Environmental rules are generally applicable to human being and community of the word that nature health. In enacting the rule of law that protects environmental pollution the state will be liable of negligence and at the other hand risk being doctorial by enacting draconian laws. That was londg ago, today the society has changed and rights of an individual comes before that of the society just like it stated in the UDHR Document section 37( Therius,S. P.45)

In reference to the lawsuit brought by a group of landowners who live near a dairy farm it is difficult to ascertain who is in the right since all laws are equal and superior no matter their classifications. The current laws on the environment would support the plaintiff but at the same time the law societal rule will support the defendants.

The born of contention in issue is whether the aromatic nature of the farm's creation and processing of manure is a public nuisance. Just as the Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland said in a case in 1926, “Nuisance may be merely a right thing in a wrong place like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard."Yes nuisance actionsmay be private or public, but it s also important to assert that private life should not affect public life and vice versa.

 It is not right for the court to grant trespass right to the public, to access private property without the permission of the owners this might be seen as inversion and besides that the court was right ruling that some aroma may not be avoided.

Asking the property owners $1000 until the issue is resolved is not loudable enough. One might want to know the economic value of the property. Property owners remit taxes to the national treasury and incurring a daily fine of $1000 daily will hurt the property and maybe bring it to its knees. At the same time property owners should not expect Northfield to pay $500 within 3o days this is a bit costly for Northfield although it is right to do so.

By the judge ruling that the Northfield must shut off dispersal process during the rainstorms or incur daily fine ($1000 a day) it indeed recognized the lives of people living in the surrounding environment and the health dangers they are subjected to. This may be seemingly tough for Northfield but as the Vienna Conference ruled the life of an individual comes first. Northfield will go an extra mile in making sure good protective measures are employed.

The court also ruled out that Northfield must stop runoff into river, this was very right. The plaintiff are justified in asking $1000 just for this reason. Serious Public Health issues can be experienced in the future if this is not put under the control.

With all the above preposition and justifications, I agree with the ruling of the judge as in my opinion it took in consideration what matters to both the public and private property owners.