Fly Fishing Outfitter Case Study

The fly fishing outfitter did not have any legal recourses that were discussed in lecture. The fertilizer plant did not violate the Clean Water Act section 402 because the plant obtained a permit prior to discharging the pollutant. Also, the EPA and the state approved all discharge action reported. Additionally, common law claims are inadequate because pollution caused by industrial activity is considered a negative externality. The producer and consumer of the product are not directly responsible by the impact. The cost of the externality does not take into the consideration of the cost of the goods. Likewise, it is difficult to quantify impact and distribute the responsibility equally. Legally, the polluter has no criminal liability due
to the lack of adequate punishment. Therefore, no claim can be brought up to the plant and it is not responsible for the negative environmental impact cause by eutrophication.