Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rose Paratto on January 10, 2013 at 3:53pm

Not that I would but wanted to know if anyone else denied it and for what reason?  Consider that if the survey finds something the EPA considers reportable, who is responsible for corrective action? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on January 10, 2013 at 4:41pm

RE: "Consider that if the survey finds something the EPA considers reportable, who is responsible for corrective action?"

 

If something dangerous is in your drinking water supply, why would you not want to know about it?

If something dangerous is in your drinking water supply, would you want your family to continue to drink that water?

 

If something dangerous is discovered in my drinking water supply, worrying about  who is responsible for corrective action would not be my first concern.

It is likely that the person or entity who is responsible for corrective action is the person or entity that is responsible for creating the problem.

If no one is responsible for whatever problem might be discovered with your water, it would be your responsibility/problem.

 

If you choose not to allow them to gather baseline water quality information ... and a post drilling problem is discovered with your water, how would you prove it was Chesapeake's responsibility and not a pre-existing problem?

 

The baseline testing is for your protection, it would inform you of potential pre-existing problems (problems that could affect you and your family, with particular risk to unborn, infants and children). The baseline testing is for your protection, in that were post drilling problems identified, these would lileky result in others responsible in finding a solution.  

 

All IMHO,

                  JS

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Oliver Perry on January 11, 2013 at 2:23am

There is no prudent reason to deny the testing. It benefits the well owner in every way, including at the very least, a free test of the quality of the water you have been drinking.

• ▶ Reply