We’ve been looking in recent posts at a study concerning the presence of toxic chemicals known as PFASs in public water supplies, noting that Georgia is among a group of states noted to have relatively high levels of these chemicals in its water supplies. As we noted, the EPA does regulate this group of chemicals.
Last time, we began looking at the topic of PFASs contamination of public water supplies. As we noted, there are various potential ways that PFASs can enter into water supplies other than industrial sites. Not surprisingly, these toxins show up more frequently in some states and locations than others.
In recent posts, we’ve looked a bit at the issue of water fluoridation and some of the legal aspects of the topic. As we noted, water fluoridation allowed on the belief that it is beneficial for public health, and the question of fluoride toxicity is largely dismissed, even if more researchers are questioning the practice.
Environmentalists and governments, including here in Georgia, appear to agree on the importance of enforcing clean water laws, including the federal Clean Water Act. In one locality, Duke Energy has agreed to settle a federal lawsuit by paying $1 million in compensation for water pollution that it caused. The company owned a coal-fired nuclear power plant that discharged toxic heavy metals and pollutants into a nearby lake.
Last time we began looking at Georgia Power’s recent release of its plans to close a number of coal ash ponds. As we noted, the safety measures surrounding these closures have since generated concerns about the safety of the company’s plans.
In previous posts, we’ve looked at Georgia Power’s recent announcement of its plans to move forward with the closure of 29 coal ash pond sites. The plans, which are a response to federal regulations regarding coal ash disposal, have been criticized by the Southern Environmental Law Center and other environmentalists because of concerns about long-term toxic exposure of waterways.
Coal ash disposal is an important area of environmental concern here in Georgia. Because coal ash can be toxic to human populations, it is critical that it is carefully handled and disposed. Over 130 million tons of coal ash is produced every year in the United States, and is usually disposed by dumping it in bodies of water called coal ash ponds.
Last time, we spoke briefly about some of the causes of action that can be included in environmental litigation, including trespass, nuisance, strict liability, negligence, as well as various statutory violations. Another possibility in environmental litigation is fraud. An example of environmental litigation involving allegations of fraud can be seen in a recent lawsuit filed against Exxon Mobile Corp.
Previously, we looked briefly at the claims made in a lawsuit filed against carpet manufacturers and distributors, who are accused of polluting the Coosa and Conasauga rivers, causing elevated levels of toxins which require expensive filtration. For any business, evaluating environmental liabilities should always be part of thorough risk-mitigation efforts. This includes not only complying with state and federal statutory obligations, but also exercising reasonable care with respect to environmental resources the company has at its disposal.
Pollution of the Coosa and Conasauga rivers, which run through eastern Alabama and Northwestern Georiga, is reportedly the subject of a lawsuit filed by a Gadsen, Alabama water company. The lawsuit, which targets 32 carpet manufacturing companies and suppliers, alleges that the companies knowingly released chemicals into the rivers, which resulted in “substantial economic and consequential damage” for the water company.