Academic literature on the topic 'National water act (act 36 of 1998)'

Despite the transition to democracy in 1994, South Africa still had apartheid legislation on the statute books and the allocation of water was regulated by the 1956 Water Act. Accordingly, post-apartheid South Africa underwent a water sector reform process culminating in the new National Water Act (No. 36) of 1998. One component of the Act is the requirement for a classification system to determine different classes of water resources. The classification system provides a definition of the classes that are to be used and a seven-step procedure to be followed in order to recommend a class. The class outlines those attributes society requires of different water resources. The economic, social and ecological implications of choosing a class are established and communicated to all interested and affected parties during the classification process. This paper outlines the socioeconomic and political context in which the WRCS was developed and outlines the seven-step procedure.

South Africa introduced a visionary policy for water resource management in 1998. The South African National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) contains several innovative mechanisms with the potential to transform water resource management within the country and abroad. The Reserve is one of these innovations, guaranteeing a basic water requirement for both human needs and ecosystem health. This article discusses the process of Reserve determination and implementation in South Africa and identifies challenges and opportunities for successful implementation. Based on the perceptions of 28 water managers, consultants, and researchers, the key issues and recommendations for improving implementation are presented. The major findings indicate that political support, the capacity of the implementing organization, supporting policies, strong linkages between policy actors and effective monitoring programs are key issues in the successful implementation of sustainable development policy mechanisms.

South Africa's water law dispensation has changed dramatically with the promulgation of the National Water Act 36 of 1998. The previous distinction between public and private water has been abolished and the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry has been appointed to act as trustee of the nation's water resources. Through the working of section 4(4), exclusive rights of water use, which were in force before 1998, were replaced by water allowances, granted in the discretion of the relevant authority.The key issue, which is investigated in this article, is whether the state, through the provisions of the National Water Act, expropriated vested rights in property or whether such infringement merely constituted a deprivation.The new concept of property in terms of section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the distinction between deprivation and expropriation are examined. It is indicated that the concept of property in South African law has been extended to include not only ownership but also rights in property. Existing water use rights, which were available to certain individuals in terms of the 1956 Water Act, can be classified as property.Section 25(1) authorises the infringement of private property in certain defined instances. Despite the many academic works which define the difference between deprivation and expropriation as described in section 25(2), the Constitutional Court clarified this matter in First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services 2002 7 BCLR 702 (CC). Expropriation is described as a sub-category of deprivation. Only when it has been established that the requirements of section 25(1) have been complied with, is the question of whether deprivation constitutes expropriation, asked.The requirements for deprivation, expropriation and inverse condemnation are discussed with reference to applicable case law.After the aim of the National Water Act was weighed up against the disadvantages which individuals suffer through the infringement of their vested rights, the conclusion was reached that the nation's need for sustainable water resources carries more weight than the individual's exclusive right of use of water. A constitutionally valid deprivation has thus occurred. Due to the fact that the state did not appropriate any rights in this process, the conclusion was reached that this provision does not amount to expropriation. It does however appear that the provisions of the National Water Act can give rise to inverse condemnation or constructive expropriation in specific circumstances.In addition, three other strategies of strengthening international environmental governance should be pursued: First, the various international environmental treatymaking and treaty-implementation processes should be better harmonised or, at least, co-ordinated; in this context, UNEP is called upon to continue and intensify its efforts to enhance the synergies and linkages between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) with comparable areas of focus, by prompting the respective MEA secretariats to enter into appropriate co-ordination arrangements and giving them full logistic support in this respect. Second, as many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have considerable knowledge and expertise in environmental and developmental matters, States should consider intensifying the partnership with them. States should, however, be empowered to make a selective choice among the mass of NGOs operating at international level. They should accept as partners only those NGOs which meet certain qualitative requirements. Third, as local governments are key components of national sustainable development strategies if such plans are to succeed, the existing local Agenda 21 processes should be expanded and intensified. In particular, supporting the direct engagement of local and sub-national institutions from around the world in international activities and partnerships is an important component of good international environmental governance.

The waste discharge charge system (WDCS) is being developed by the Department of Water Affairs to promote waste reduction and water conservation. It forms part of the Pricing Strategy, which is being established under the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998). The WDCS is based on the polluter-pays principle and aims to:promote the sustainable development and efficient use of water resourcespromote the internalisation of environmental costs by impactorscreate financial incentives for dischargers to reduce waste and use water resources in a more optimal way. The WDCS is premised on resource quality objectives (RQOs) as the measure of acceptable risk, and seeks to achieve RQOs at lowest total cost to the catchment. Where RQOs are exceeded or are threatened, impact on the resource is unacceptable and the WDCS may be deployed to achieve RQOs. The system will be applied at a catchment scale where the catchment is defined as those areas that have a significant impact on water quality, or are impacted by the specific water quality problem such as salinity, nutrients, heavy metals and organics. This paper aims to provide a summary of the WDCS Strategy.

South Africa is a party to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat of 1971 (also referred to as the Ramsar Convention). Article 3(1) of the Ramsar Convention makes provision for the wise use of wetlands, which is defined as the “maintenance of the ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development”. The Conference of the Parties has agreed on inherent weaknesses that could lead to the hampering of wise use. These weaknesses include, but are not limited to, authorities working in isolation; and the lack of communication between public and private sectors or technical personnel (environmental impact assessment specialists). Within the enabling provisions of South Africa’s EIA regulations, reference is made to “water source”, “water resource”, “wetland” and “ecosystem”. All these terms are read to include a wetland. However, whereas the terms “water source”, “water resource” and “wetland” are defined in the National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA), an “ecosystem” is defined in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (NEMBA), and “water source” is defined in the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 (CARA). Furthermore, the administration of the NWA is with the Department of Water and Sanitation, while NEMBA is with the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, and CARA is with the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. This multiplicity, combined with the application of the various specific environmental management acts (SEMAs), complicates the manner in which an EIA application is considered. This is so in that the national environmental framework casts the net wide in identifying the competent authority, but also in its effect on wise use decision making on activities pertaining to wetlands. In light of the aforementioned, this article aims to address the shortfalls and make recommendations that promote wise use.

One of the gravest constraints which South Africa faces in its efforts to promote development and to lift much of its population out of poverty is the relative scarcity of its water. Significant changes were made to South Africa’s water law in the 1990s, especially with the promulgation of the National Water Act 36 of 1998. In terms of this Act a Water Tribunal was created which ought to have enhanced water security and to have provided a settled forum to adjudicate disputes and to assist in developing the jurisprudence of water law. Instead the Tribunal appears to have created almost as much confusion as clarity before it was dissolved in much uncertainty over whether it would continue in existence or not. A recent judgment in the Gauteng High Court (The Trustees of the Time Being of the Lucas Scheepers Trust, IT 633/96 and Others v MEC for the Department of Water Affairs, Gauteng and Others) has created uncertainty by departing from the precedent of a relatively recent judgment in the North Gauteng High Court (Escarpment Environment Protection Group and Wonderfontein Community Association v Department of Water Affairs and Xstrata Alloys (Pty) Ltd and The Water Tribunal). In the context of the uncertainty created by the falling into desuetude, at least between 2011 and 2016, of the Water Tribunal, and contradictory indications from National Government, litigants have been forced to seek other fora for remedies. On occasion, courts have been sympathetic and given sensitive judgments – on occasion they have not. Against this background of inconsistent jurisprudence, it is important that there be greater clarity of rights, duties and institutions, and that institutions become settled as soon as possible so that a consistent jurisprudence can begin to emerge in the water rights field. While the situation stabilizes, which it is hoped that it will soon begin to do, it is suggested that both courts and government act with circumspection in considering applications concerning water use rights; and be sensitive of the current uncertain circumstances when making decisions. The difficulties of ensuring water security and administrative fairness in South Africa demand nothing less.

Human life, as with all animal and plant life on the planet, is dependant upon fresh water. Water is not only needed to grow food, generate power and run industries, but it is also needed as a basic part of human life. Human dependency upon water is evident through history, which illustrates that human settlements have been closely linked to the availability and supply of fresh water. Access to the limited water resources in South Africa has been historically dominated by those with access to land and economic power, as a result of which the majority of South Africans have struggled to secure the right to water. Apartheid era legislation governing water did not discriminate directly on the grounds of race, but the racial imbalance in ownership of land resulted in the disproportionate denial to black people of the right to water. Beyond racial categorisations, the rural and poor urban populations were traditionally especially vulnerable in terms of the access to the right. The enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, brought the South African legal system into a new era, by including a bill of fundamental human rights (Bill of Rights). The Bill of Rights makes provision for limited socio-economic rights. Besides making provision for these human rights, the Constitution also makes provision for the establishment of state institutions supporting constitutional democracy. The Constitution has been in operation since May 1996. At this stage, it is important to take stock and measure the success of the implementation of these socio-economic rights. This assessment is important in more ways than one, especially in the light of the fact that many lawyers argued strongly against 1/2the inclusion of the second and third generation of human rights in a Bill of Rights. The argument was that these rights are not enforceable in a court of law and that they would create unnecessary expectations of food, shelter, health, water and the like; and that a clear distinction should be made between first generation and other rights, as well as the relationship of these rights to one another. It should be noted that there are many lawyers and non-lawyers who maintained that in order to confront poverty, brought about by the legacy of apartheid, the socio-economic rights should be included in a Bill of Rights. The inclusion of section 27 of the 1996 Constitution has granted each South African the right to have access to sufficient food and water and has resulted in the rare opportunity for South Africa to reform its water laws completely. It has resulted in the enactment of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997 and the National Water Act 36 of 1998.In this paper the difference between first and second generation rights will be discussed. The justiciability of socio-economic rights also warrants an explanation before the constitutional implications related to water are briefly examined. Then the right to water in international and comparative law will be discussed, followed by a consideration of the South African approach to water and finally, a few concluding remarks will be made.

This edition of PER consists of one oratio, 13 articles and one book review dealing with a variety of themes.The first contribution is an oratio delivered by Lourens du Plessis at a colloquium hosted by the Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape, on 2 October 2015 to celebrate his life and work, in which he aptly refers to himself as a "learned jackal for justice".The first of the 13 articles is by Lonias Ndlovu, who uses the 2013 Supreme Court of India case of Novartis AG v Union of India to argue for legislative reform by SADC members in the granting of patents for new versions of old medicines. Secondly, Lunga Siyo and John Mubangizi consider whether the existing constitutional and legislative mechanisms provide sufficient judicial independence to South African judges, which is fundamental to democracy.Leah Ndimurwimo and Melvin Mbao trace the root causes of Burundi's systemic armed violence and argue that despite several UN Security Council Resolutions and peace agreements aimed at national reconciliation and reconstruction, mass killings and other heinous crimes remain unaddressed. In the fourth place, Marelize Marais and Jan Pretorius present a detailed contextual analysis of the categorical prohibition of hate speech in terms of section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (the Equality Act). Phillipa King and Christine Reddell discuss the pivotal role of the public in water use rights, especially in the context of theNational Water Act 36 of 1998 in the fifth article. The difficulties surrounding the tripartite scheme of statutory, constitutional and living law in a pluralistic system such as South Africa are the focus of the article by Rita Ozoemena. She uses the case of Mayelane v Ngwenyama 2013 4 SA 415 (CC) as an example to illustrate the difficulties experienced in trying to balance this scheme. Angela van der Berg critically discusses and describes from a legal perspective the potential and function of public-private partnerships (PPPs) between local government (municipalities) and the private sector in fulfilling the legally entrenched disaster management mandate of municipalities. André van der Walt and Sue-Mari Viljoen argue that there are sound theoretical and systemic reasons why it is necessary to keep in mind the differences between property, land rights and housing rights when analysing, interpreting and applying any of these rights in a specific constitutional text. The special procedural measures which must be considered in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 in order to decide if a contract is procedurally fair are analysed by Philip Stoop in his article. Liz Lewis also scrutinises the judicial development of customary law in the case of Mayelane v Ngwenyama 2013 4 SA 415 (CC). She pleads for a judicial approach which take cognisance of the norms and values with reference to their particular context and audience instead of those embedded in international and western law. Water security, which is dealt with by Ed Couzens, remains a highly topical theme in a country such as South Africa. He explores ways to circumvent the effects of the Constitutional Court in Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg 2010 4 SA 1 (CC) with regard to the allocation of water to the poor. Izelle du Plessis discusses some of the existing opinions regarding the incorporation of double taxation agreements into the domestic law of South Africa. Last, but not least, Koos Malan deliberates on the rule of law and constitutional supremacy and comes to the conclusion that they are, from the perspective of the factual dimension of the law, more susceptible to the volatility of unpredictable changes and instability than the doctrine of the rule of law and constitutional supremacy purport them to be.In the last contribution to this edition, Robbie Robinson reviews the book "International Law and Child Soldiers" written by Gus Waschefort and published by Hart Publishing (Oxford) in 2015. He is of the opinion that the book is asine qua non for studies of children in international law.

Thesis (LL.M. (Environmental law and Management)) --University of Limpopo, 2007.
The purpose of this thesis was to critically examine the enforcement of environmental regulations with special reference to the enforcement of offences in the National Water Act 36 of 1998. “Enforcement” was conceptualized as “power” the exercise of which is constrained by the constitutionally guaranteed rights, especially the rights contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 – the Bill of Rights. “Compliance” was conceptualized as a rational action. The polluter is both a rational economic actor as well as a rational political actor. “Enforcement” and “Compliance” were further considered as economic activities with costs and benefits. The “responsive enforcement and compliance” model was also adopted in this thesis. Environmental regulation is contentious because of the failure to adequately distinguish environmental crimes (mala prohibita) from common law crimes (mala in se) and the erroneous believe in the immutability of law especially pro-defendant procedural rights in criminal prosecution. This failure to distinguish environmental crimes from common law crimes resulted in the requirement of the proof of mens rea in criminal prosecution for breach of environmental law. Arguments were advanced to show that mens rea can easily be proved in environmental law areas of land use and development and resource conservation while it is a Herculean task for the prosecutor to prove mens rea in waste disposal and pollution offences. Arguments were also advanced, in terms of s. 24 of the 1996 Constitution and s. 2 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, to show that “sustainable development” and the principles derived therefrom, especially the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter–pays principle”, are part of the corpus of South African constitutional and statutory laws. The “precautionary principle” and the “polluter-pays principle” have assumed the status of customary international law, and consequently part of South African laws in terms of s. 232 of 1996 Constitution. The provisions of s. 24(b) of 1996 Constitution prescribed both positive and negative duties for the state in respect of environmental regulation and prescribed the ambit of environmental regulation in South Africa. The “precautionary principle” is interpreted as deliberation guiding in form and a legal rule in content. The “precautionary principle” as a rule guides the actions of organs of state and other environmental stakeholders. The “polluter-pays principles” is interpreted as a legal rule which should be applied in the “all-or-nothing” sense. Arguments were advanced for the application of the “polluter-pays principles” in criminal prosecution. The legal effect of the application of “polluter-pays principle” in criminal prosecution for environmental crimes is to negative mens rea and transform environmental crimes to strict liability offences. In the environmental law areas of land use and development and resource conservation where mens rea is easily provable, the application of the “polluter-pays principle” would limit the prosecutor’s duty to proving, beyond reasonable doubt, the acts that constitute the offence against the accused. Thereafter, it is opened to the accused to prove, on scale of probabilities, that he lacks the mens rea (dolus or culpa) necessary for conviction. In the area of waste disposal and pollution control where proof of mens rea is difficult, the application of the “polluter-pays principle” should result in the application of the rule in Rylands Fletcher. All the prosecutor need do to obtain conviction is to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the acts that constitute the offence against the accused. The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) is identified and recognized as the dominant social paradigm (DSP) in South Africa. It is within the context of this DSP that environmental regulation is situated. Examining the penal provisions in the National Water Act 36 of 1998 against the background of the DSP, one is not left in doubt why the water pollution and degradation offences in the Act are fault-based. The DSP also partly accounts for the subordination of criminal law to administrative and civil judicial procedures in the enforcement of offences in the NWA 36 of 1998. Offences in the NWA 36 of 1998 were classified into 5 groups– failure crimes, reporting crimes, fraud crimes, obstruction crimes and environmental injury crimes. The failure crimes, reporting crimes, fraud crimes and obstruction crimes are common law crimes (mala in se) in the environmental law context, they are therefore subject to criminal prosecution like any other common law crime. Most of the environmental injury crimes are subject to administrative and civil judicial penalties, that is, the criminal sanction is subordinated to administrative and civil enforcement. The water pollution and degradation offences in s. 151 (1)(i)(j) of NWA 36 of 1998 are fault-based. In a water stressed country, this is a subsidy to industry for job creation and poverty eradication as dictated by the DSP– the RDP. However, in the prosecution for water pollution and degradation offenses, the application of the “polluter-pays principle” would negative mens rea. The legal effect is that in any prosecution for water pollution or degradation, to secure conviction, the prosecutor is only expected to prove the acts constituting the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is thereafter open to the accused to the prove, on scale of probabilities, that he lacked either the dolus or culpa required to ground conviction. Since different cast of players are responsible for environmental protection and criminal prosecution (the National Prosecution Authority), coordination amongst the environmental agency, the prosecuting authority and the police is recommended. This can be achieved, inter alia, through joint participation in national enforcement conferences and joint participation in environmental task forces.

The paradigm shift in water quality management of South African water resources was based on current international trends. This significant move was from a previous emphasis on source management to a focus on finding a balance between water resource protection and water use. The current approach requires that water quality and quantity should be maintained for sustainable functioning of both the natural aquatic environment and socioeconomic development. This approach has placed the assessment of water quality status as a key decision tool in water quality management. Various assessment tools have been utilized to quantify the quality of South African water resources. In this study we assessed the compatibility of some of the methodologies that have been used in the Department of Water Affairs to determine and report on the water quality status of the resource. During the assessment the context and manner in which these methodologies can be utilized in water quality management were also addressed The Compliance Evaluation and Fitness for use categorization methodologies are both used to describe the water quality threshold of potential concern when dealing with the resource. Compliance Evaluation methodology uses a pass or fail assessment, while the Fitness for use categorization methodology uses a scaled approach allowing for the assessment of gradual change in the system. The out puts of these two methodologies, the Resource Water Quality Objectives and Fitness for use categories/ classes have both been used in the department as benchmarks to describe the current water quality status The assessment of the two methodologies indicated that there are similarities in the approaches and the principles behind the two processes. The observation of the results, however, indicated differences in the manner of presentation of the results, the interpretation of the outcome and in how water quality management measures that needs to be implemented are linked. Both methodologies are easy to apply when conducting water quality status assessments. However, the two methodologies are not sufficient on their own when making decisions on water quality management. It was concluded that although the compliance evaluation methodology can play a pivotal role when setting end of pipe standards, the process needs to consider the gradual changes of water quality in the river system in order to enable instigation of different water quality management measures at appropriate levels. Further it was recommended that with some modification the two approaches can be applied to assess water quality to support adequate water quality management decisions at various levels.
Dissertation (MSc)--University of Pretoria, 2013.
gm2014
Animal and Wildlife Sciences
Unrestricted

The concept "beneficial use" plays a pivotal role in South African water law reform. It forms the foundation of the mechanism to make water use rights available for the reform of the allocation of water use entitlements. The mechanism involves that water use rights that were unexercised in the two years before the promulgation of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 are not defined as existing lawful water uses. Where the concept "beneficial use" is utilised to cancel unexercised water use rights, it can cause potential hardship. Some people whose rights have been cancelled believe that they should be able to rely on the property clause in section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 to either have the legislation declared unconstitutional or to demand compensation. Section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property and states that property may only be expropriated for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject to compensation. Section 25(4) states, however, that the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources. It is clear from this that reforms to bring about access to water are allowed by the property clause. One of the main questions discussed in this thesis was whether section 32 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 that made more water available for distribution for reform purposes by cancelling unexercised water user rights, leads to an arbitrary deprivation or an expropriation of property. It should be noted that section 32 of the National Water Act did not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property, as sufficient reason exists for water law reform. A possible constitutional challenge based on the lack of due process of law because of the retrospective operation of the section may possibly be averted because of the existence of section 33 of the National Water Act. Section 33 of the Act mitigates hardship by allowing unexercised water uses to be declared existing lawful water uses in certain circumstances where a good reason for the non–exercise of the water use right existed. Even in cases where section 33 does not prevent section 32 from being regarded as an arbitrary deprivation of property because there still was not a proper procedure, the government will probably be able to show that the limitation in section 32 is, in terms of section 36(1) of the Constitution of 1996, reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. Despite the fact that section 25(1) prohibits arbitrary deprivations, it does not prohibit the government from regulating competing rights to use water even though some people may be negatively affected by the regulation. Because the Minister merely acts as public trustee of the nation's water resources on behalf of the national government in terms section 3(1) of the National Water Act, it cannot be claimed that the government acquired the cancelled water use rights. A claim that compensation should be paid for an expropriation of property will therefore not succeed. Compensation is only payable in terms of section 22(6) and section 22(7) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 for a loss of existing water entitlements, such as existing lawful water uses or existing licences. A court should thus consider interpreting section 25 by providing for compensation where an individual was unfairly burdened and was therefore denied the protection of the equality clause in section 9 of the Constitution when his unexercised water use rights were cancelled by section 32. The concept "beneficial use" currently restricts the content of the water use entitlement existing in terms of section 4 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998. The loss of the entitlement when inter alia a licence for an existing lawful water use is refused, is not protected by the payment of compensation when water is used in an unfair or disproportionate manner, because such utilisation would not be regarded to be beneficial use. It became apparent that in terms of the current water law dispensation in South Africa, the possibility of compensation for an amendment of a water use licence and the refusal of a licence for an existing lawful water use implies that a water use entitlement is a right in property. The fact that section 22(7) of the National Water Act states that the amount of the compensation must be determined in accordance with section 25(3) of the Constitution implies that the legislature also recognises that a water use entitlement is constitutional property. Section 22(7) of the National Water Act underlines the basic premises of the National Water Act by subjecting the amount of the compensation that is payable to the same limitations that restrict the entitlement to use the water. The stipulations of section 22(7) draw the attention to the fact that the exercise of both existing lawful water uses and water use licences as rights in property is subject to basic principles of the National Water Act such as the Reserve and the concepts "public trusteeship" and "beneficial use" of the water resources. The fact that compensation is only payable when there has been severe prejudice to the economic viability of an undertaking implies that water use entitlements have to be exercised at the time of the application for the compensation to be payable. The concept "beneficial use" – in the sense that a water use must not be wasteful or polluting and in the sense that only water use entitlements that are being exercised are protected – thus restricts the water use entitlement as a property right. During the research, American and Australian water law reform and their interpretation of their property clauses were compared to water law reform in South Africa and the South African property clause. Furthermore, Australian policy to encourage more beneficial water use by the trade in water entitlements or allocations, was also discussed. South Africans will likely in future be encouraged to trade in water use entitlements or allocations. The objective with allowing the trade in water use entitlements or allocations is to encourage people to rather use water for uses with a high value instead of uses with a lower value. In this way the concept "beneficial use" may be broadened to include water allocation or entitlement trading. However, it was argued that a disproportionate impact on third parties would mean that water allocation or entitlement trading would in some cases not be regarded as beneficial use anymore.
Thesis (LL.D.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

This chapter explores South Caucasian perspectives on the Hague Principles. The rules of private international law in all three South Caucasian countries—Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan—are primarily contained in statutes: the Chapter of Private International Law in Armenia (1998) and separate statutes on Private International Law in Azerbaijan (2000) and Georgia (1998). Article 1253(1) of the Armenian Civil Code and Article 1(2) of the Azerbaijani Act provides that the courts may apply international customs in the area of private international law. In so far as the Hague Principles amount to or eventually crystallize into customary international law, the courts may give effect to the Hague Principles in that manner. Before that happens, there is nothing in the legal systems of either of the three jurisdictions preventing the courts from citing for explanatory and persuasive reasons soft law instruments, such as the Hague Principles. That said, stylistically the judgments of the South Caucasian jurisdictions are often drafted in a very concise and skeletal manner. Soft law instruments and commentary might influence the reasoning of the judges, but they would rarely refer to them in the text of the judgment.

Formaldehyde is a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) that is typically emitted from natural gas-fired internal combustion engines as a product of incomplete combustion. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing national emission standards to regulate HAP emissions, including formaldehyde, from stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This work investigates the effect that variations of engine operating parameters have on formaldehyde emissions from a large bore natural gas engine. The subject engine is a Cooper-Bessemer GMV-4TF two-stroke cycle engine with a 14″ (36 cm) bore and a 14″ (36 cm) stroke. Engine parameter variations investigated include load, boost, ignition timing, inlet air humidity ratio, air manifold temperature, jacket water temperature, prechamber fuel supply pressure, exhaust backpressure, and speed. The data analysis and interpretation is performed with reference to possible formaldehyde formation mechanisms and in-cylinder phenomena.

Strategies to reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign oil, increase the use of renewable energy, and lessen the contribution to global warming have received significant attention. National adoption of such strategies could significantly impact America’s economy and security as well as global climate change. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandates specific renewable energy market penetration targets for the year 2022 [1]. For liquid transportation fuels, the 2022 EISA mandate is 36 billion gallons per year (bgy) of biofuel, of which 21 bgy must come from feedstocks other than corn starch. Despite this legal mandate for renewable biofuels, many questions remain unanswered with regard to the potential environmental effects of such a large increase in the production and use of biofuels. In addition to specifying volumetric standards for these renewable fuels, EISA establishes greenhouse gas mitigation standards. The objective of this study is to use life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the global warming potential (GWP), water use, and net energy value (NEV) associated with the EISA-mandated 16 bgy cellulosic biofuels target, which is assumed in this study to be met by cellulosic-based ethanol, and the EISA-mandated 15 bgy conventional corn ethanol target. Specifically, this study compares, on a per-kilometer-driven basis, the GWP, water use, and NEV for the year 2022 for several biomass feedstocks.

Concerns over rising fuel prices, national security, and the environment have led to the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, which established a mandate for the production of at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels in 2022, up to 15 billion gallons of which can come from traditional first-generation biofuels sources such as corn starch-based ethanol. One consequence of ramped-up biofuels production is the risk of additional soil runoff. This runoff, potentially laden with nitrogen and phosphorus compounds from fertilizers, can detrimentally impact water quality. Consequently, the water treatment sector might require additional energy to remove increased quantities of sediment and run-off from nutrients and pesticides in degraded water bodies downstream of agricultural land. At the same time, the cumulative effects of increased eutrophication in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River Basins have already negatively impacted much of the aquatic life in the Louisiana-Texas continental shelf. A recent report by U.S. Geological Survey measured nitrogen loading in the Mississippi River basin as high as 7,761 metric tons per day, the highest recorded loading in the past three decades, 52% of which is attributed to loading from corn and soybean crops. Massive algae blooms that thrive in nutrient-rich water deplete the water of oxygen when they die, creating a hypoxic region. This hypoxic region, which currently covers a region the size of New Jersey, is considered to be the second-largest dead zone in the world as of 2007. As a result, the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan of 2008 was established to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous loading by 45% in order to shrink the hypoxic region to 5,000 square kilometers. Thus, at a time when water quality priorities aim to decrease nitrogen and phosphorous loading in waterways, legislative targets are seeking to increase corn starch-based ethanol production to 15 billion gallons a year, and thereby potentially increase nitrogen loading in this region by 10–34% due to runoff. Consequently, the energy intensity for water treatment may have a two-fold challenge. Because water and wastewater treatment is already responsible for 4% of the nation’s electricity consumption, putting more stringent demands on this sector could put upward pressure on energy consumption. This analysis quantifies the impact that the mandated increase in ethanol production might have on the energy required for water treatment in the United States. It reports results from a first-order top-level analysis of the energy impacts of ethanol. The results indicate that the increased production corn-starch based ethanol in the United States is not likely to increase the energy consumed during surface water treatment, but might cause significant increases in the energy consumed during groundwater treatment.