About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

AAPG Bulletin

Abstract


Volume: 57 (1973)

Issue: 8. (August)

First Page: 1606

Last Page: 1606

Title: Legal and Institutional Considerations of Deep-Well Previous HitWasteNext Hit Disposal: ABSTRACT

Author(s): William R. Walker, William E. Cox

Article Type: Meeting abstract

Abstract:

Deep-well injection of wastes is subject to two levels of legal and institutional constraints. The first consists of regulatory procedures established by state and federal legislation. Previous HitWasteNext Hit injection has traditionally been regulated by the states through use of a variety of statutory constructions and administrative organizations. Federal control over subsurface disposal has essentially been limited to radioactive wastes, but influence currently is being extended into the general area of underground Previous HitwasteNext Hit Previous HitmanagementNext Hit. The apparent intent of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 is the subjugation of state regulatory procedures to federal standards, with actual administration of controls ultimately to remain with the states.

The second level of constraints consists of the property rights of adjacent landowners. These adjacent rights are important because injected wastes do not respect property boundaries and therefore may produce conflict with certain aspects of property ownership. The most obvious type of infringement involves injurious contamination of property interests by the injected Previous HitwasteTop. A more indirect case of contamination may involve the pressure-induced migration of naturally occurring pollutants such as mineralized water. Another potential type of pressure-related interference with property consists of structural damage from seismic activity initiated by injection. In some jurisdictions, even the unauthorized occupation of underlying space without measurable damage to the landowner may consti ute a violation of property rights. The courts in most states have not been confronted with all these issues, but the party adversely affected by injection generally will be able to invoke a variety of legal actions, including nuisance, negligence, and trespass. In addition, some states accept the concept of strict liability regarding hazardous activities and the escape of deleterious substances, with the result that the injured party is relieved of the requirement of proving fault.

End_of_Article - Last_Page 1606------------

Copyright 1997 American Association of Petroleum Geologists