Fwd: Utilities Are Ruled Liable for Pollution Court

[Guest guest]

just thought that you might like to read this

Elaine

>

>Reply-To: " NPWA Press "

>To: " Jane "

>Subject: Utilities Are Ruled Liable for Pollution Court

>Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:25:19 +0100

>

>Sorry for the delay on this one - we have only just seen it. - Jane

>

>Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times

>February 5, 2002

>

>Utilities Are Ruled Liable for Pollution Court: Water agencies argued

>unsuccessfully that they could not be sued over illnesses because such

>matters are regulated by the state.

>

>By MAURA DOLAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER

>

>SAN FRANCISCO -- Victims of contaminated water can sue utilities regulated

>by the state for violating safe drinking water standards, the California

>Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.

>

>The decision clears the way for victims of ground-water pollution across

>the state to seek financial compensation from private companies and public

>agencies that provide contaminated water.

>

> Hulett, who argued before the court on behalf of regulated utilities,

>said her clients will fight the litigation because of the potential

>consequences. " We have to protect water suppliers as well as the public, "

>she said. " If we had all these lawsuits, the cost of water would be really

>seriously affected. "

>

>In the cases before the court, about 2,500 alleged victims of ground-water

>pollution in the San Valley contend that they have been harmed by

>drinking water tainted by industrial solvents and other chemicals. Dozens

>of the plaintiffs say the contamination gave them blood-related forms of

>cancer. A state probe in 1998 found that the water was safe to drink.

>

>Lawyers for the plaintiffs say the ground-water contamination began in the

>1960s and persisted for decades. The federal government in 1984 designated

>the ground-water basin a Superfund cleanup site.

>

>Residents sued regulated utilities and municipal and private water

>agencies, in addition to the industrial users who allegedly contaminated

>the water. The defendants all sought to dismiss the lawsuits on the grounds

>that the state Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over such

>matters.

>

>Previous rulings suggested that the regulated utilities might prevail on

>this point, but the legal issues had never before been tested by the high

>court in just such a case. The San Valley lawsuits are the first in

>the state in which water agencies have been sued for selling contaminated

>water, said a lawyer for one of the utilities. Most lawsuits have been

>aimed at the polluters.

>

> A. Praglin, who represents about 500 of the plaintiffs, said he hopes

>that Monday's ruling prompts regulated companies " to think twice before

>they serve water that has contamination. " The ruling allows the plaintiffs

>to have a trial on their claims.

>

> " And I hope they think about compensating the people who have cancer in

>this case before the people die, " said Praglin, whose Los Angeles law firm

>represented victims of ground-water pollution in a case made famous by

>paralegal Brockovich.

>

>In trying to dismiss the lawsuits, the defendants cited the 1998

>investigation by the PUC into allegations of contamination in water

>delivered by regulated utilities.

>

>The state regulatory agency concluded that the utilities had " substantially

>complied " with state requirements over the last 25 years and delivered

>drinking water that was safe.

>

>In Monday's decision, written by Justice Ming W. Chin, the state high court

>said plaintiffs can sue all of the defendants, including state-regulated

>utilities.

>

>The decision reaffirmed the power of the PUC to regulate water utilities in

>both pricing and water quality. But the court said that allowing a jury to

>determine whether the utilities met government standards would not

>interfere with PUC regulation.

>

> " A court has jurisdiction to enforce a water utility's legal obligation to

>comply with PUC standards and policies and to award damages for

>violations, " Chin wrote in Hartwell vs. Superior Court, S082782.

>

>The court limited the liability for regulated utilities, however. It ruled

>that these utilities cannot be held responsible for contamination if they

>delivered water that met government standards.

>

>Hulett, the utilities' lawyer, said she was disappointed that the ruling

>allows a jury to determine whether her clients met drinking water

>standards.

>

>But she said the suppliers in the case at hand can show that they did

>comply.

>

> " The water agencies are not going to settle because the last thing we need

>is to invite more lawsuits, " Hulett said.

>

> " If we have not violated standards and we have not caused anyone to become

>ill ... we are not going to settle a lawsuit. "

>

>Private water companies and municipal agencies can be found responsible for

>contamination even if the water they delivered met health standards at the

>time.

>

>ph F. , a lawyer for three private water companies sued in the

>case, said his clients will show that the water they delivered met

>government standards and caused no harm.

>

> " To the extent that the cost of the litigation impacts the price that water

>wholesalers charge for the water, then it could ultimately impact the price

>to the consumer, " he said.

>

> A. Rosen, whose law firm represents about 2,000 of the litigants,

>said the ruling may spur residents elsewhere in the state to sue water

>agencies for harm caused by water pollution.

>

> " People have been waiting to see whether they could go to court, " Rosen

>said.

>

>Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times

>*************

>NB - Artificial water fluoridation with H2SiF6, or any fluoride compound,

>is a de minimus violation of the US Safe Drinking Water Act. It is not

>prosecuted because the contamination is below the MCL. It is, nevertheless,

>deliberate contamination with the intention of causing physiological

>changes in humans.

>

>www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/dental_fluorosis.html

>www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/H2O.html

>

>

>

>---

>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 24/05/02

_________________________________________________________________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com