Wednesday, April 14, 2010: 2:10 p.m.
Tabor Auditorium (Westin Tabor Center, Denver)
Traditional legal remedies for drinking water contamination focus on the “potentially responsible party” who actually released the pollution, for example, the operators of retail gas stations, local dry cleaning operations or fertilizer or pesticide applicators. When contamination affects public water supply wells, however, these remedies frequently fail. First, there is an enormous disparity in knowledge and culpability between the large corporations that developed and distributed their ubiquitous products, and the small businesses that unknowingly stored, sold, and accidentally released them to the environment. Second, the costs of treating even modestly sized public water supply wells are quite large. The financial resources needed to pay such costs are beyond the scope of many local businesses. Public water suppliers may have an overwhelming liability case in these situations but run the risk of having the “responsible” party unable to pay even a small portion of the damages awarded.
Recent lawsuits by cities and other public water agencies have focused on pursuing parties higher up the chain of commerce. Instead of suing the traditional “potentially responsible party,” these cases focus on the defect in the “product” released and place responsibility on its manufacturer. The courts have seen lawsuits against the refiners of gasoline containing MTBE, as well as the manufacturers of PCE associated with dry cleaners, TCE from industrial degreasers, DBCP and TCP from soil fumigants, and others.
This new approach to contamination litigation has important implications for public water suppliers lawyers, regulators, and environmental consultants. This presentation will discuss the legal theories underlying these landmark cases and the status of lawsuits currently pending in jurisdictions around the country. The presentation will also discuss emerging contaminants of concern to rural water providers and the legal and political responsibilities and pitfalls involved in addressing actual or threatened contamination of a public water supply.
Recent lawsuits by cities and other public water agencies have focused on pursuing parties higher up the chain of commerce. Instead of suing the traditional “potentially responsible party,” these cases focus on the defect in the “product” released and place responsibility on its manufacturer. The courts have seen lawsuits against the refiners of gasoline containing MTBE, as well as the manufacturers of PCE associated with dry cleaners, TCE from industrial degreasers, DBCP and TCP from soil fumigants, and others.
This new approach to contamination litigation has important implications for public water suppliers lawyers, regulators, and environmental consultants. This presentation will discuss the legal theories underlying these landmark cases and the status of lawsuits currently pending in jurisdictions around the country. The presentation will also discuss emerging contaminants of concern to rural water providers and the legal and political responsibilities and pitfalls involved in addressing actual or threatened contamination of a public water supply.