Should the Tannery Get the Effluent Licence?
A district of 30,000 people has 41% youth unemployment. A leather tannery applies for a licence to discharge treated effluent into a river 3 km upstream of the intake for the town's water works. The tannery promises 180 permanent jobs and 60 seasonal ones, and a local payroll of about 9 million pula a year. Its own environmental assessment reports that chromium levels in the effluent would be 0.08 mg/litre against a national limit of 0.05, and that the treatment plant would meet the limit only 80% of the time unless upgraded at a cost the company says it cannot bear. Downstream are 1,200 subsistence farmers and a fishing cooperative of 90 members. The council must decide within 60 days.
1. Set out the decision the council faces as a trade-off, using the figures. What would you recommend?
Read the worked answer
Gains. 180 permanent plus 60 seasonal jobs is 240 positions in a district of 30,000 with 41% youth unemployment - roughly 12,300 young people out of work if youth are about a third of the population. The payroll of 9 million pula a year would support traders and tax revenue. These are real and immediate.
Risks. The effluent would exceed the chromium limit (0.08 against 0.05 mg/litre) and the plant would comply only 80% of the time - about one day in five. The discharge point is 3 km upstream of the town's own water intake, so the risk falls on the same residents the jobs would benefit, plus 1,200 farmers and 90 fishers who have no voice in the licence.
Recommendation: conditional approval, not outright refusal and not unconditional grant. Conditions: (1) the upgrade is completed and independently tested before discharge begins; (2) a bond or insurance covers cleanup if the company fails; (3) real-time chromium monitoring with results published and automatic shutdown above 0.05; (4) the water works intake is moved or protected; (5) a review after 12 months. If the company cannot fund the upgrade, the council should consider a phased or publicly supported upgrade, because the jobs are worth pursuing but not at the price of the town's drinking water. Refusing outright sacrifices 240 jobs for a risk that can be engineered down; granting unconditionally transfers the risk to people who never agreed to it.
2. The company argues that 80% compliance is 'good enough' and that the limit is too strict for a developing district. Evaluate this argument.
Read the worked answer
The argument confuses an average with a guarantee. Eighty per cent compliance means roughly one day in five above the limit - about 73 days a year of chromium above 0.05 mg/litre entering water 3 km from the intake. Drinking water is not a service where four days in five is acceptable, because the harm falls on whoever draws water on the fifth day.
'Too strict for a developing district' also cuts the wrong way. A district with 30,000 people and limited testing capacity is less able to detect and treat contamination than a rich one, so the case for a firm limit is stronger, not weaker. The limit protects the 1,200 farmers and 90 fishers who depend on the river and who have no lawyer at the hearing.
A fair version of the company's point would be: the limit is affordable only with help. That is an argument for a phased upgrade, a public loan, or a higher price for leather - not for writing a weaker standard into a licence. The council can accept the constraint and negotiate who pays for meeting it.