Fracking lawsuits are spreading across the US. The first cases
were launched in Pennsylvania in 2009, claiming damages for
contamination of the aquifers on which the plaintiffs depend. Since
then, other cases have been launched by dozens of property owners
in Pennsylvania, Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, New York,
West Virginia etc.. Some lawfirms are actively soliciting potential
Most of the lawsuits assert that improper drilling, capping
and/or casing practices allowed toxic chemicals to escape into
their groundwater, causing loss in property value and expenses for
replacement water. Some also claim actual or potential health
damage from the polluted water. The contaminants complained of
include hydrogen sulfide, methane, hydrocarbons such as hexane,
toluene, propane and isobutene, and metals such as manganese,
barium and strontium.
One group of Dimock, Pennsylvania families received $4.1 M from
Cabot Oil & Gas, under a settlement reached
with the Pennsylvania regulator. A December 2010 agreement between
DEP and Cabot required the company to offer residential treatment
systems that remove methane from the residents' water, and to
pay them twice the assessed tax value of their homes. Recently,
Cabot was permitted to stop delivering bottled water to the
affected homes. The agreement does not make the company liable for
any chemicals or metals that have turned up in the residents'
water, nor does it require the company to treat the water for
anything other than methane. The residents are appealling the settlement,
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
There is a common misconception that the Crown's duty to consult aboriginal peoples is unstructured and uncertain, and a related misconception that the government consistently loses legal challenges on this basis.
In Fort Nelson First Nation v. British Columbia (Environmental Assessment Office), 2016 BCCA 500, the B.C. Court of Appeal recently considered three issues involving the Reviewable Projects Regulation under B.C.'s Environmental Assessment Act:
On December 20, 2016, the federal government obtained a fine of $975,000 for improper handling of electrical equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) against a Montreal property management firm.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).