Language:
    • Available Formats
    • Options
    • Availability
    • Priced From ( in USD )
    • Secure PDF 🔒
    • 👥
    • Immediate download
    • $24.00
    • Add to Cart
    • Printed Edition
    • Ships in 1-2 business days
    • $24.00
    • Add to Cart

Customers Who Bought This Also Bought

 

About This Item

 

Full Description

Finalized in 1989, the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) was designed to protect public health against microbial contamination in finished drinking water through the detection of total coliforms and fecal coliforms or E. coli in routine monitoring. While total coliform bacteria are not pathogens, they were thought to be indicators of potential contamination of the water supply through inadequate disinfection or breach of the system. The TCR is up for revision and one aspect that needs amending is the requirement that total coliform positive samples, with no evidence of fecal coliform or E. coli, trigger an MCL violation and public notification. When a utility or the health department suspects an unsafe water situation, a boil water advisory is issued and the public is alerted immediately; a TCR violation does not rise to this level. Four class action lawsuits for TCR violations have been filed and are proceeding through the state court system in Louisiana. Two of these lawsuits are discussed in greater detail in this paper; one has been decided, a second is pending trial, and two have not moved beyond the filing step. Two of the water districts involved, Ward II Water in Baton Rouge and Water District 5 in Lake Charles, had monthly MCL violations based on >1 TC positive sample because they collect <40 samples/month. Repeat samples were negative for TC and there is no indication in either system that the TC positive was anything other than a random event. There was no reported increase in gastrointestinal disease, school or work absenteeism, emergency room or doctor visits, or other factors associated with a waterborne disease outbreak. Plaintiffs' lawyers published ads in newspapers and went door-to-door to gather >3000 individuals in each lawsuit claiming health effects based on the public notification language. While the plaintiffs' claims seem weak, defending these lawsuits has been very expensive for these small systems. The two cases that have proceeded to court are: Schumate et al vs Ward II Water District (W2W), and Edwards and Abney vs Calcasieu Parish Police Jury and District No. 5 Ward 3 (CPPJ). Both are class action lawsuits with ~3000 plaintiffs. This paper summarizes these two cases.