Evidence supports ‘legacy lawsuits’

I write in response to Don Briggs’ comments which appeared in the Sept. 26 edition of The Advocate. Briggs is once again complaining about legacy lawsuits, an issue that without which Briggs would seemingly not have a job. Let’s be clear: Briggs is a lobbyist for Big Oil — an industry that is essential to Louisiana but also one that has a history when it comes to pollution and coastal erosion. If anyone has doubts about this history, I encourage them to visit http://www.cleanwaterandland.com, view the pictures in the gallery, and decide for themselves.

Regarding Briggs’ reference to the so-called “percent” of cases having no evidence of actual damages, this figure amounts to “fuzzy math” and has no bearing on reality.

Oil pollution lawsuits arise from the more than 18,000 unlined and open toxic waste pits left behind by the industry, some of which are the size of football fields. The percent figure has to do with the information in the possession of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, not the information in the possession of the landowners pursuing the case.

Simply put, LDNR’s files are not up to date and contain errors.

The damage in pollution cases can be proven in a number of ways — the simplest being by photographic evidence of open sludge pits, drums oozing chemical waste, oil spills on the ground, and rotting equipment. LDNR does not keep track of this type of proof. Their only obligation is to review soil and water samples, which must be collected by and paid for by the landowner, a process that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The average landowner does not have hundreds of thousands of dollars, but he can afford to take pictures of the obvious contamination bubbling to the surface. While pictures are good enough for judges and juries, they are apparently not good enough for Briggs. As the saying goes, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

It’s time for us to stop bickering about the legitimacy of legacy lawsuits, roll up our sleeves and start cleaning up the legacy of pollution that contaminates our groundwater, poisons our seafood, and threatens our future. A clean environment encourages oil companies and other businesses to come to Louisiana. If these companies have a clean environment in which to operate, they don’t have to set aside money to conduct cleanups in the future. By the same token, a clean environment is good for tourism, great for the seafood industry and essential to our coastal restoration efforts.

Stacy Schliewe

homemaker

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by tongueNcheek - 03/10/2012

Not surprising, Don "Nutria" Briggs lives in a world where all facts are fuzzy. Instead of blaming a rodent for coastal erosion, let's start protecting the marshes to protect our unique culture in areas across Louisiana, like Lafitte. "I've got duck leases out there, and I remember when they were covered in grass. They're all ponds now," Don Briggs, president of the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association, said. "It's not gone because of drilling. It's because nutria ate all the grasses." http://www.nysun.com/national/oil-gas-industry-may-be- implicated- in-katrina/69837/

2) Comment by tradewinns - 03/10/2012

chucky, i always wondered why pollution isn't just burned. the soil where the pollution is located is polluted already and while burning the soil may sterilize it, that's better than just recycling the pollution for later (pumped it back undergraound). burning will destroy the majority of pollutants and yes it will distribute whats left over a larger area, but that's what nature does itself. "the solution to pollution is dilution" is the motto of those who clean up pollution.

3) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 02/10/2012

Briggs always uses fuzzy math. Every single letter the man writes to the paper is filled with unsubstantiated fuzzy math. I wonder sometimes if he is capable of telling the truth.

4) Comment by Chucky - 02/10/2012

My brother work a crew for haz. wast cleanup some years ago. the land had been a dumping pit for more than one petrol chem co. in the early 60's This goo would bubble up a kind of blueish color and at an ambient temp of around 98 deg. burst into flame. This stuff was leaching into the surrounding area. They had to put in about 25 neg. wells that just pumped the stuff back into the ground but kept it from running off the land. Was too much a risk to move and that was the only solution that worked.

5) Comment by Chucky - 02/10/2012