Thank you Holly for stating how "cause" is defined, or, in
this case, NOT defined.
How about "responsible party"? In today's "deep pocket"
mode of thinking, that could be anyone. Especially if a
decision has to be made about who is responsible for a
minor, someone mentally unsound, mentally deficient, ... at
the time of such an incident.
How about KNOWN waste sites that are currently contaminating
people's ground water AND being monitored by the EPA, right
now. Are they going to be "grandfathered" by some obscure
method?
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Action Needed on Waxman/Pallone amendment to Safe Drinki
Author: [log in to unmask] at internet-mail
Date: 5/15/96 12:44 PM
So, let me get this straight.
"Person" could mean -
an individual human being,
a company,
an industry,
a condo association,
a realty agency that owns an industrial park,
a realty agency that owns rental property,
an association of private residences on a private road,
the US government ... opps, sorry, didn't mean that one!!!
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Action Needed on Waxman/Pallone amendment to Safe Drinking W
Author: [log in to unmask] at internet-mail
Date: 5/15/96 11:41 AM
Representative Waxman (D-CA) and Representative Pallone (D-NJ) are =
expected to introduce an amendment this week at a markup of the House =
Safe Drinking Water Act bill (at this time, no markup has been =
scheduled; however, it is rumored that one is expected). =20
The amendment, termed the "Polluter Pays" or "Ratepayer Protection" =
amendment would allow any public water system to bring lawsuits against =
any person who is found responsible for any pollutant at any level =
present in source water, including recovery for the costs of treatment =
and/or monitoring the pollutant.
Industry groups, including IPC, are very concerned that the broadly =
drafted amendment would make any business, homeowner, farmer, rancher, =
citizen, or institution potentially liable for any activity -- =
intentional or not, that results in, or contributes to, any contaminants =
in source water. For example, anyone could be held liable for =
agricultural or land use activities, runoff from storms, or other =
weather/geographic circumstances, construction or transportation =
activities. =20
This amendment would increase litigation against potentially responsible =
parties, increasing litigation fees and costs for small businesses. =
Issues such as contribution are unresolved. As a result, in cases where =
pollution cannot be traced to one source, liability could be "joint and =
several" meaning that one party can be held liable for pollution caused =
by others.=20
This amendment would not improve drinkng water quality. Rather, it is =
merely a way to shift the costs of water treatment on to industry and =
other entities. It is also likely to increase costs for ratepayers =
since increased litigation will spawn higher rates. =20
We urge you to contact your U.S. Representative today -- by fax or by =
phone and urge him/her to reject the Waxman/Pallone Safe Drinking Water =
Act amendment. Representatives who will be most influential on this =
issue include: Bilirakis (R-FL), Hastert (R-IL), Barton (R-TX), Upton =
(R-MI), Stearns (R-FL), Klug (R-WI), Franks (R-CT), Greenwood (R-PA), =
Burr (R-NC), Bilbray (R-CA), Whitfield (R-KY), Ganske (R-IA), Norwood =
(R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Brown (D-OH), Lincoln (D-AR), Deutsch (D-FL), =
Stupak (D-MI), Wyden (D-OR), Hall (D-TX), Bryant (D-TX), Towns (D-NY), =
and Studds (D-MA). The number of the Capitol switchboard is (202) =
225-3121. Companies that are located in Waxman and Pallone's =
congressional districts are particularly encouraged to use their =
"constituent clout" to defeat this litigious and unsound amendment.
|
