[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Loon Zone Chat Page Version 1.60 ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Beej (63.153.13.78) on 08:10:54 05/17/15
In Reply to: Slate's interpretation is off-base. posted by Beej
....is, Who got their ox gored? I looked through the public version of the statute again, and didn't see who sponsored it before it was passed. Found a couple of other references to it elsewhere, still with the same misinterpretations as the Slate article. As written, it would appear to prevent someone who thought a privately owned water well had been contaminated by, say, a dry cleaning chemical plume dump, from submitting the resulting chemical test results to prove damage had been done.
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Loon Zone Chat Page Version 1.60 ] [ FAQ ]