Water Well Journal
Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/573697
ais undr F o e t t Dona e liv ve o Impr tion. uc sing A o the NGWREF . ldwide or es w ve . ti dona o e yo Make y! da o ion t tion our auc e t x ex 800 551.737 er t a oundw r G ension 504 79 • 614 898.7791 tion uc om/A .c rExpo , , Industry NEWSLINE NEWS continues on page 16 Pending California Lawsuit Sets Court Date T he legal battle over California's reg- ulation of lead, a known carcinogen and neurotoxin, enters its next phase in October. The state of California filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the complaint is untimely. The court has set a hearing date for the motion on October 16. A veteran for-profit legal enforce- ment group sued the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in early January, seeking to invalidate the existing "safe harbor" for lead exposure. The Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation asserts the existing safe harbor is too lenient and should be eliminated. Mateel filed its own 109-page motion for judg- ment on the pleadings on August 10. A ruling in Mateel's favor could have sweeping effects for businesses operat- ing in California and businesses that serve California's large market for con- sumer products. Thousands of manufac- turers, processors, distributors, retail- ers—and yes, businesses that work with California's public water supply— regularly rely on the safe harbor for lead exposure in daily operations. Lead is one of the most frequently referenced chemicals in Proposition 65 intent-to-sue letters. By one count, 412 of the 1394 Proposition 65 notice letters issued last year involved lead exposure or exposure to lead compounds. It is no surprise, then, the California Chamber of Commerce and a large coalition of businesses and trade associ- ations have already formally called on OEHHA to "vigorously defend itself" against the lawsuit. If Mateel prevails, businesses operat- ing in California could be subject to a sudden and unprecedented influx of lawsuits from plaintiff enforcement groups like Mateel. Businesses could be forced to issue costly and extensive warnings or be subject to heavy fines if using products containing even a trace amount of lead. Businesses working with California's water supply would also need to com- pletely eliminate traces of lead and lead compounds before discharging water. The lawsuit involves California's Proposition 65, which was created in 1986 through a voter initiative. Proposi- tion 65 echoed growing concern among the California electorate over the harm- ful effects of exposure to toxic chemi- cals. At the time, Proposition 65 called for the nation's (and the world's) most- stringent regulation of toxic chemicals in consumer products and drinking water. Proposition 65 became the Drink- ing Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The act requires OEHHA to regularly update and publish a list of toxic chemi- cals. OEHHA lists chemicals scientifi- cally proven to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm and the allowable concentrations of the chemicals in California. To date, OEHHA has listed more than 900 differ- ent carcinogens and reproductive toxins. 14 October 2015 WWJ waterwelljournal.com