Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Energy bill provision may stop suits over water polluted by gas additive

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 07:32 AM
Original message
Energy bill provision may stop suits over water polluted by gas additive
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-09-30-mtbe_x.htm

Energy bill provision may stop suits over water polluted by gas additive

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

The city of Santa Monica, Calif., recently agreed to settle a lawsuit against 18 big oil companies and distributors of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has been found to contaminate drinking water.

Without the settlement — the amount of which is being negotiated — the city's water customers would have to foot the bill for an environmental cleanup that city officials say could cost $300 million.

But suits such as Santa Monica's might no longer be possible under a wide-ranging energy bill that Congress is about to pass. Buried in the massive bill is a paragraph that would give the makers and distributors of MTBE immunity from liability lawsuits like Santa Monica's. The provision protects makers from being held liable for defects "in design or manufacture of ... MTBE."


The energy bill addresses a long list of energy issues, from tax breaks for utilities to oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. The House and Senate have passed differing versions of the bill, and negotiators are working this week on a compromise version.

If the MTBE provision makes it into the final bill, Santa Monica water manager Craig Perkins says it could leave cities and local water districts without a way to force those responsible for MTBE to pay for cleanups at thousands of sites across the nation that have been contaminated by the additive.

MORE..........


Hey... If polluters are able to prevent redress in court - such that taxpayers will have to foot cleanup bills.... in a sort of way - isn't this a defered tax increase?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Just when you think it
can't get anymore outrageous. This "plan" is one of the smelliest pieces of shit the rethugs have tried to force down our throats yet. I can't believe it has even gotten this far in light of the total secrecy in which it was created. The Democrats NEED to filibuster and kill this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LastDemInIdaho Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. MTBE proponents should pay for the cleanup
Whomever forced MTBE onto the fuel industry should pay for the cleanup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. that would be ARCO and big oil
according to this salon article .


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
3. For the pResident EVERYTHING HE DOES IS A TAX INCREASE
we are spending our way into economic oblivion and catastrophe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is a globalization commitment
...to avoid the massive fines levied by NAFTA and GATS when elected representative governments with constitutions try to represent the best interests of the public. There won't be a peep out of Congress or the media. You can tell from this artice which completely avoids the more sinister implications of the report. The issue isn't MTBE, the issue is who rules America, national, state, and local. Apparently, it is the mulinational corporations who run roughshod over constitutional government.

The Congress is selling out the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
5. i am so glad
my local station has CORN GAS additive and not MBTE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. That does NOT mean you are unaffected...
Karenina goes digging into her files... AHA! Here it is!

http://www.pei.org/FRD/60_Minutes_Transcript.htm

Please read this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nn2004 Donating Member (172 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Congress forced MTBE on us it looks like
Kroft: MTBE is shorthand for a chemical called methyl tertiary butyl ether. If you don't know about it yet, you will. It's a gasoline additive that is contaminating drinking water from Maine to California and has been called the biggest environmental crisis of the next decade. How did MTBE end up in gasoline? Well, ten years ago, Congress told the oil companies to put it there, either MTBE or some other oxygenate that would make gasoline burn cleaner. It was supposed to clean up the air. But now MTBE is turning up in lakes and underground aquifers, and in twenty percent of the nation's urban wells, forcing some cities to shut down local water supplies. It seems to be turning up wherever people look for it. And no one was even looking for it until it turned up in Santa Monica, California, a few years ago.

Anyone know who submitted/sponsered/petitioned the congressional bill that got MTBE into law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. read the article linked to in message #12
surprise, surprise. big oil was in favor of MTBE. they realized they could charge for something that used to be just toxic waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. What?
<Oil companies have said that the government required them to add MTBE to gas. But the EPA says that the additive was not specifically required and that refiners could have chosen to use ethanol or other oxygenates.>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GregW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
7. You have to be f*cking kidding!
MTBE is one of the worst toxic disasters perpetuated on California. This is actually the only issue I agree with Dr. Bill Wattenberg on (why it should never have been introduced in the first place).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. They Say 76 Gas Doesn't Have any MTBE
How do they do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. the signs say it "may contain ethanol"
... which has its own environmental baggage.

apparently when ethanol-laced gasoline gets into the ground, it somehow enables the gasoline to migrate faster, making cleanup more difficult.

see ethanol problems

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
10. Grrrr!
In Lake Tahoe, where Mom lives, over HALF of the basin's wells have been polluted and shut down due to MTBE contamination. It has been a nightmare for them.

How typical of these assholes to try and get their buds out of a sticky situation. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Didn't they try to do the same with asbestors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
11. Nafta considers regulatory acts "tantamount to expropriation"
MOstly the US constitution does not although some regulatory acts have been considered "TAKINGS"...this is an out and out modification of the US constitution.


How do you spell the Bush family friend's name? Koshiggi? Seem to recall him possibly being on the board of a Canadien company that deals in MTBE although I may completely OFF on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-03 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. YOU'RE BEING POISONED.
Yes, YOU, your KIDS, and yer Grandma! Heads UP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC