Texas man faces billions in fines for storing wood

It looks like the guy was running a wood recycling business, and he stepped on the wrong bureaucrats toes. I did not really understand why the government had to clean up the land.

Wow, what jacks me up is the part were a private law firm representing a public entity like the county is allowed to bring suit against a citizen landowner seeking damages that they can keep a portion of if awarded, then make a political contribution. Essentially this looks like a hidden pay to play scheme, which undermines our basic freedoms by allowing a politically tied organization to conduct a search warrant for the benefit of an elected official. No cool at all, I'm very surprised that this is allowed to happen in Texas, I'd expect this to happen in my nanny state of NJ.

Just some more revenue generation.

He dosen't own it- sold in 2002 to some waste firm. Likely they went belly up and the normal progression of this type of stuff is to just sue anybody still around in regessive order. Happen to an acquaintance of mine. His dad had bought a piece of property back in the early 60's across from the then current mfg plant. City condemned current plant ( most of the bulidings were from the early 1900s as such there has always been various code issues every time they come up with new rules- but lately it has become impossible to deal with) mostly because they wanted the land for something so he was going to build on the other property because it was cheaper to just raze the old place and build new. Been an empty lot for 40 years that they would park there trucks on sometimes.That came up as contaminated seems way back when it was a wholesale fuel transfer company- long gone- so he got hit with all kinds of suits. Basicly the gov. destroyed his business put 500 people out of work . He filed bankrupcy for the company as well as personal no other choice. Both pieces of land are now listed as brown fields and he still is getting hounded. It was just after wwii when his dad started up and was renting a portion of the orginial property.

On the Flower Mound property, if the current owner is processing construction debris (Republic Waste), how can they pin it on the previous owner? Talk about incentives for ridiculous values not to just recover costs...

Lake Girl said:

On the Flower Mound property, if the current owner is processing construction debris (Republic Waste), how can they pin it on the previous owner? Talk about incentives for ridiculous values not to just recover costs...

Click to expand...

Typically the lawfirm will sue anyone/corporation/estate past or present that had any type of connection to property. Its all about finding the deepest pockets. In a lot of the cases the aggressor law firm doesn't get a dime until the suit is settled.

Take a tree from any city that has a fairy complex background of manufacturing and very likely you are going to find, by chemical analysis, all kinds of nasty stuff that the tree has absorbed in one way or another. Now compound that with our out of control EPA regulations and the idiotic litigious society that we have evolved into and hence the orginal posting. Best Read the link to the article.

They had to haul 60 loads away ... to where? ... of what exactly? Just spreading the pollution? What ppm levels did they find? Is Republic Waste part of the Republic Services that handles city waste? Lots not stated in that article.

This does not appear to be a case like Hooker Chemical (& US government) and Love Canal or PG&E cases...

The article definitely has a misleading photo and premise. Environmental liability does travel back to prior owner if it can be proven that they had culpability. If there are records, the firms that disposed of products can also be liable. One of the things that was stressed when I worked with a large facility is that once the waste is generated, the facility owns if forever. They may send it to a legal landfill but some day in the future if that landfill has an issue it could come back to haunt the company that generated it.

Pretty much it comes down to it up the prior owner to prove that the subsequent owner is the one that trashed the place. I know of several properties that have old contamination, a broker generally will be very careful in handling them, they usually get the owner to sign a property disclosure and if the owner happens to forget to disclose, the broker has some coverage. Frequently even the brokers wont go near them and they end up private sale. I know of a couple of properties locally that are in legal limbo, the last owner has been long bankrupt and taxes haven't been paid for years but the local towns and state government refuses to foreclose as they don't want the liability. If there is lot of political pull with the congressional delegation there may be brownfield designation but it pretty rare.

Even with the brown field designation the hook doesn't leave. Generally it gives the municipality away of clean up with out being on the hook. That is how they tend to do it here so that the property can be redeveloped adding to the tax base yada yada ( the usual spiel )

Meanwhile at the EPA....."some accidents are bound to happen"

...and they will get fined. And they will clean it up. And they will create plans that reduce future risk because it costs them a ton when they don't do it the right way.

When the EPA does it? Oppsss...sorry. No criminal charges. Guess the taxpayer pays for cleanup even though we grossly broke the protocol we enforce on others and released 3,000,000 gallons of waste. Which is HUGE compared to the articles you posted.

Accountability For Thee, But Not For Me: EPA, The Animas River And 'Environmental Crime'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/201...s-river-and-environmental-crime/#7f044e496d4b

Had a discussion years ago with a co-worker about TRS air emissions from paper mill (before it closed). He contended they couldn't do that ... showed him the Ministry report. They had 290 TRS exceedances in one year ... cheaper for them to pay the fines than repair/upgrade equipment. Our ministry of environment Ontario in action....

Just saw that TransCanada Pipelines will be seeking ruling through NAFTA ... not sure how that will go in light of the fairly recent leak on Keystone pipeline in S. Dakota.
https://www.thestar.com/business/20...on-compensation-for-keystone-xl-pipeline.html
http://ecowatch.com/2016/04/09/keystone-1-spill/

I must be in the minority on the fundamental issue of the original article which is some entity created a hazardous waste site, apparently walked away and some government agency is trying to deal with it, albeit with a very flawed approach as the local governments don't have the wherewithal to fund enforcement efforts. Hazardous waste dumping unfortunately happens frequently by folks out to make a quick buck and what is forgotten is the impact to innocent neighbors or people who don't know any better. There are generally conservative folks who yell and scream murder about heavy handed regulations on businesses and they are same folks who reduce funding for environmental regulation but reality is that corporations by law don't have the concept of ethics in their charters. If its cheaper to dump now and litigate or walk away later that's what a corporation is going to do as if doing it the "right way" costs more, that is contrary to the interests of shareholders. If on the other hand there is law in place that says they cant dump, then ethics doesn't factor in, the corporation has to follow the rules or at some point the company may get caught. Of course some company managements just try to pass the buck to future boards but on occasion the system works and companies like VW get caught.

I guess that is where I have the issue ... original article states there is/was a waste company that owns the property. Not sure how the prior owner gets tapped with a bill for clean-up...