Ohio Governor Declares State of Emergency in Drinking Water Contamination Case
According to an ABC report, the Governor of Ohio has declared a state of emergency due to toxins contaminating the drinking water supply for approximately 11 million people.
Toledo officials warned residents not to use city water after microcystin tests at one treatment plant showed that levels were above the standard for drinking water consumption. Residents were told not to brush their teeth, wash dishes, or bathe in the water. Residents were warned that doing so could cause vomiting, cramps, and rashes.
Truckloads of bottled water were delivered from across the nation as the Ohio National Guard used water purification systems to produce drinkable water for residents. Researchers blame the contamination on sewage sludge from sewage plants, chemical fertilizer from nearby farms, leaky septic tanks, stormwater drains, and a large amount of phosphorus flowing into the surrounding lakes.
This case of contamination is the second incident in Ohio in recent years. The first incident in Ohio—which spurred a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2433) — related to drinking water contamination involving the chemical C-8 (ammonium perfluorooctanoate). These federal cases pending in the Southern District of Ohio allege that the chemical manufacturer, DuPont, knowingly contaminated several drinking water supplies in Ohio and West Virginia with C-8 (In Re: E.I du Pont de Nemours and Company C-8 Personal Injury Litigation; MDL 2433). Roger Denton of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton has been appointed by The Honorable Judge Edmund A. Sargus to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the federal C-8 Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2433). The attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton are experienced in litigating dangerous toxic exposure cases and are leaders in an array of national multidistrict litigations involving toxic tort, pharmaceutical medications, and unsafe medical devices.
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The cases discussed do not predict outcomes in future cases. Past results afford no guarantee of future results and every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.