Skip to content

GLEAM and Michigan CSO Discharge

September 20, 2014

Detroit and the surrounding suburban communities need to do better.
We are polluting the very water we need DAILY to sustain ourselves.
No treatment plant is capable of scrubbing/cleaning/decontamination of
every chemical that shows up in the drinking water. They focus on just a few.
The rest of the chemicals slip by, to end up at your faucet, in your home.

Government does the bare minimum – by law
NOT the absolute maximum to protect you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ click to enlarge pics ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GLEAM mapping project

GLEAM mapping project

GLEAM CSO discharges

GLEAM CSO discharges

Second Circuit Upholds $104.7 Million Decision
–against Exxon Mobil for MTBE in City Water

-A federal appeals court July 26 upheld a $104.7 million damage
award against Exxon Mobil Corp. for pollution of
New York City water resources with the gasoline additive
methyl tertiary butyl ether.
-The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that
the Clean Air Act did not preempt New York tort law.
The court also said the case against Exxon Mobil was not
undermined by the low level of detected MTBE pollution
or the fact that the city was not yet
trying to make use of the affected waters.
-Exxon Mobil had argued, among other things,
that the Clean Air Act obligated its use of MTBE
because the New York City region
lacked sufficient supplies of alternatives, primarily ethanol.
-But the court said the jury at the lower court level
determined guilt not solely because MTBE
was used but because of other additional factors,
such as failure to exercise ordinary care in preventing spills.
-The ruling upheld a decision finalized in 2010
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
in a case brought against the company by New York City,
the New York City Water Board, and the New York City
Municipal Water Finance Authority.

-Source: Bloomberg BNA Environmental Reporter
7/26/2013 Breaking News
discussing In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (”MTBE”)
Products Liability Litigation, 2d Cir.,
Nos. 10-4135, 10-4329, 7/26/13)


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: