Haber Wood Products Ltd. had a permit from the provincial government to extract water from a nearby river for manufacturing purposes. It was also permitted to discharge the water, which now contained harmless chemicals, into the river. The discharge was continuously monitored for other contaminants to ensure that the discharge only contained the permitted harmless chemicals. MD Manufacturing Inc. also had a permit to draw water from the river, and under its permit it was entitled to discharge certain nonpoisonous chemicals into the river. The discharge water was also monitored. While the chemical discharge from each plant was harmless, and the combination was non-toxic to humans, higher concentrations of the resulting mixture were toxic to fish. Downstream from the two plants, Olsen operated a fish hatchery and fish farm. One day he discovered his entire stock of fish dead or near death. He immediately contacted the government ministry to determine the cause of his loss. Discuss, the issues raised in this case. How would liability (if any) for Olsen’s loss be determined?