Whether or not the recent floods have anything to do with climate change, there is no doubt that things have been hotting up for environmental lawyers.

Over the last few years, they have had to get their heads round an endless stream of new initiatives - from contaminated land to the regulation of packaging materials - and there are more on the way.The changes have had a major effect on practitioners.

Mike Renger, the head of the environment department at Nabarro Nathanson's Sheffield office - the National Centre for Law in Industry - says that five years ago, environmental law was 'very reactive - usually because the client had a problem or needed authority for something.

Now, it has become key to the business decisions of most large companies.

I find that my contacts are at board level now, rather than at the level of the environment manager, such is the importance that is placed on environmental law by big business.'But Mr Renger says it is not just large companies that are having to take environmental law seriously.

'Small operators are also affected, and therefore more companies have to have new environmental controls.' Such is the impact of new environmental legislation, he says, that turnover has increased by 30% over the past 12 months .Paul Watchman, a partner at City firm Freshfields, says that because of new regulations governing the prevention and control of pollution, the number of businesses requiring authority to operate has increased from around 8,000 to 40,000.

He explains that the existing legislation which came into force in 1990 has been tightened up by the government's new Integration Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regulations, so that it is now far more onerous.The result of the new legislation, according to Kate Brock, senior solicitor at Addleshaw Booth & Co in Manchester, is that 'the person running the business has to get authority to operate from either the local authority for lesser processes, or the Environment Agency for more polluting processes.

The authority looks at everything that might impact on the environment and sets out the conditions on which the business can operate'.

If operators breach the conditions, they can be fined up to £20,000 in the magistrates' court or an unlimited amount in the Crown Court.

Mr Renger says that although fine levels have gone up, the Environment Agency is still lobbying for higher penalties.For its part, the Environment Agency, formed five years ago, says that setting levels of fines can be problematic and is trying to draw up some guidelines.

Adrian Nuttall, the agency's regional solicitor for the north-east, accepts that there are often mitigating circumstances.

The new guidelines will therefore look at how far the polluter could have foreseen the problem, the amount of pollution caused, and the polluter's ability to pay.The other big issue for environmental lawyers is the new contaminated land regime, which gives local authorities and the Environment Agency the power to track down individuals, and make them responsible for cleaning up sites.

Because of the financial implications for clients of the new regime, City firm Nicholson Graham & Jones has just set up a Land Pollution Consortium in conjunction with surveyors Rogers Chapman and environmental management consultancy Stanger Science and Environment, to offer multi-disciplinary advice (see [2000] Gazette, 5 October, 9).As a result of the increasing complexity of environmental law, practitioners warn that it has to be taken into account in a growing number of transactions.

Mr Watchman says: 'We tend to have environment law plugged into everything the firm does.

For instance, you have to be careful if you are doing a land portfolio which contains a contaminated site.

Liability is either on the polluter or, if he can't be found, on the owner of the land who is defined as the person entitled to the rent.

So if you have set up a situation where a bank is the security trustee for the portfolio and you can't find the original polluter, then liability rests with the bank.'And things are not going to get any easier.

According to Kathy Mylrea, the head of the environmental law department at City firm Simmons & Simmons, existing legislation is constantly being fine-tuned and more is under consideration.

For instance, a new water framework directive is in the offing, as well as more climate change levies - due next year - to encourage companies to behave in a more environmentally friendly manner.The same principle applies to the landfill tax, introduced in August 1996.

Ms Brock explains: 'The reason for introducing it was to penalise those wanting to deposit.

By charging them higher rates for tipping, the idea was to force them to look for alternative ways of disposing of the waste.'The government is said to be considering doubling or tripling the £11 per tonne level of the tax to force the pace of change.Similar to the idea of the landfill tax are the packaging waste regulations, introduced in March 1997 following a European directive.

When the regulations were brought in, they affected companies turning over £5 million a year and handling 50 tonnes or more of packaging materials.

The turnover level was reduced to £2 million this year, and there is talk of it coming down again to £1 million.And Mr Nuttall of the Environment Agency, which is the regulator, warns that companies must recycle a percentage of their waste.

'Companies can pay someone else to do it for them, but they have to ensure that it gets done.'Practitioners say that their clients are more clued into what is required of them and are more exacting of their lawyers.

Ms Mylrea says: 'Most large and medium-sized organisations have systems for keeping up with the legislation, and so the questions that clients are asking are much more sophisticated now.'There is also greater awareness among the public.

The problem for individuals, however, is finding the money to pursue their cause, unless they have support from campaigning organisations like Greenpeace, which helps activists who get arrested, according to its in-house lawyer, Nick Barnes.'In addition, environmental law is technical and expensive to investigate,' says Sean Humber, a solicitor with Leigh Day & Co, which is acting for victims suffering from environmental pollution and pesticide poisoning.

He explains: 'If someone says that they live near a landfill site and are experiencing symptoms, it may be hard to make a connection and very expensive to find out.'Individuals may also soon turn to the Human Rights Act, implemented last month, to pursue environmental claims.

Stephen Grosz, a partner at London law firm Bindman & Partners, says the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg recognised in 1990 that environmental pollution may interfere with the right to respect for private life and the home.It may also be used, he says, to question 'whether the present planning or licensing appeal system guarantees fair trial rights: planning inspectors are not "independent", as article 6 requires'.In addition, he argues that the law of nuisance (which requires a claimant to show an interest in land), may have to be looked at if courts are to secure effective protection of Convention rights.

This is because the right to respect for the home can be asserted by any resident, whether or not that person is the owner.But however complex environmental law has become in the UK, spare a thought for other parts of the world.

In China, the penalty for polluting the water supply is decapitation.