Hello everyone! As we conclude the theme on water pollution, let us compare the definitions of water pollution and our opinion on Singapore’s definition of water pollution.

Comparison of Definitions

Here is a summary of the three definitions that have been mentioned in the various posts.

Our definition of water pollution: “The introduction of physical, chemical or biological contaminant(s) that cause(s) or result(s) in the decreased ability of a water body to provide benefits.”

Environmental Protection and Management Act (“EPMA”) definition of water pollution: “Any person who discharges… any trade effluent, oil, chemical, sewage or other polluting matters into any drain or land…” (SSO, 2002)

General definition of “pollute”: “To make physically impure, foul or filthy; to dirty, stain, taint, befoul spec. to contaminate (the environment, atmosphere, etc.) with harmful or objectionable substances.” (Abbot, 2006)

Based on the definitions above, we can compare the two definitions of water pollution.

Similarities

Both definitions include harmful pollutants in their definitions, which is rather straightforward as the protection of water quality is primarily the reason why there are laws to prevent water pollution in the first place.

Differences

It is important to note that our definition only covers pollution within a water body while EPMA covers land as well. This is probably because pollution on land can be washed into nearby water bodies, resulting in water pollution. This reflects the idea of the Pollutant Transfer Continuum, where pollutants produced in one location can be transported to a water body, causing pollution beyond its immediate source (Haygarth, Condron, Heathwaite, Turner, & Harris, 2005).

Another difference is the importance of water pollution impacts. In our definition, we considered pollution to occur only if it “… result(s) in the decreased ability of a water body to provide benefits”. However, what is considered “decreased ability” or “provide benefits” becomes open to interpretation. In addition, we seem to have equated decreased benefits for increased harm, which is not necessarily the case. Conversely, the EPMA definitions is much stricter in defining pollution. Based on the previous post, we can see that no harm is necessary for pollution to occur – the mere “tainting” of water is sufficient for pollution to occur.

This begs the question, is the EPMA too strict when defining water pollution?

 

Our opinions on the EPMA

Let us now focus on EPMA and discuss if its definition is too strict, too lenient, or just right.

At first glance, it may seem too strict as even harmless substances that merely “make impure or taint” the waters are considered as water pollutants. However, let’s frame it from another perspective.

Imagine being served a glass of “cloudy” water, would you consider that “clean water”?

This shows that not only is water quality important, it must be pleasing to the senses – no weird appearance, taste or smell (WHO, 2017). Hence, while the EPMA may seem excessively strict, we believe that water is such an important and scarce commodity that it is justified.

Upon reflection, we realise that our definition of water pollution places too much emphasis on quantitative hard science and not enough on the qualitative aspect of clean water. While laws should be drafted based upon a scientific basis, the EPMA’s definition of water pollution reflects the importance of considering other factors such as societal norms. Do you think the EPMA is too strict? Let us know in the comments down below!

Our next post will look at air pollution and its laws, see you there!

Lee Yang and Ryan

 

---

References

Abbot, C. (2006). Water Pollution and Acts of Third Parties: Water pollution—Water Resources Act 1991—Criminal liability—Act of landowner third party—Mens rea—Meaning of ‘polluting matter’Express Ltd (trading as Express Dairies Distribution) v Environment Agency. Journal of Environmental Law, 18(1), 119-133.

Haygarth, P., Condron, L., Heathwaite, A., Turner, B., & Harris, G. (2005). The phosphorus transfer continuum: Linking source to impact with an interdisciplinary and multi-scaled approach. Science of The Total Environment, 344(1-3), 5-14. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.02.001

SSO. (2002). Environmental Protection and Management Act. Singapore Retrieved from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/EPMA1999.

WHO. (2017). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: first addendum to the fourth edition.