Liberty family says they unknowingly moved next to 'toxic soup'

[pstokely]

Source: KSHB

CLAY COUNTY, Mo. - For almost 20 years, the Spence family believed they had the American dream on their rolling 80-acres near Liberty.

From their garden, they canned vegetables, and from the trees, they preserved fruits and jellies. They splashed in the stream, played hide and seek in the tall grass, and when they had the urge, picked berries and mushrooms in the woods.

Sometimes though, they caught a foul odor floating in the breeze from a nearby landfill, but usually disregarded it.

That is until the family’s animals began to die, and their cows gave birth to calves with terrible deformities.

Read more: http://www.kshb.com/news/region-missouri/liberty/liberty-family-says-they-unknowingly-moved-next-to-toxic-soup

[sakabatou]

1. K&R

The company is trying to cover their ass.

[Scalded Nun]

2. Yeah!

We don't need no fucking regulations! Also no inspectors to check up on these soulless pieces of shit!

[madokie]

3. That sucks

Greed is going to do mankind in sure as day is light and night is dark

[CanonRay]

27. +1

I believe it already has...we just don't know it yet.

[840high]

4. k/r

[freshwest]

5. BFI poured the chemicals directly into the ground, now claims they did nothing wrong. Bullshit!

[cstanleytech]

6. Be that as it may its going to be a difficult case for them to win.

They are going to have to prove the company concealed it and since their neighbor clearly knew thats going to be difficult plus they have to prove that its spread to their land and lastly they need to prove its what caused their health problems which considering their age isnt going to be easy.

[freshwest]

7. True, and BFI will prolong the case hoping they'll die first or be willing to settle for pennies.

That's SOP in these cases. Then if they lose a court case, they'll appeal. This is what is dangerous about weakening government so much that there is no redress from such things.

[Unknown Beatle]

9. His son Mark and granddaughter Julia

moved into a house on the land in 1997 and as a result, both have severe illnesses and they're both a lot younger than their dad and granddad.

[cstanleytech]

10. Yes I am aware of that however

they need to prove the dump contaminated the property to establish that the dump was the most likely cause plus the lawyers for the dump are probably going to demand that they be tested to make sure it wasnt something genetic that they were born with.

[Art_from_Ark]

14. 160 million tons of toxic waste were dumped on the landfill

as confirmed by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and its status as toxic waste was confirmed by the EPA.

Not only the Spence family have health problems-- many of their animals have also had health problems, including cows that gave birth to aborted and deformed calves and two dogs that died of cancer.

It doesn't sound like a genetic problem.

[cstanleytech]

17. The amount dumped is immaterial. What is material is what if anything has leaked out of the dump

to the adjoining properties.

[Art_from_Ark]

24. The amount dumped is not immaterial

The massive amount (160 million tons, or 320 billion pounds) of what may have been uncontained toxic waste virtually guarantees that some will leak out.

[cstanleytech]

25. I disagree however lets assume that its material it still means that

a judge is going to want scientific evidence that shows that the Spences property has definitely been contaminated and if by some fluke they win but they do it without that evidence the ruling is likely going to go down in flames on appeal.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, pstokely.

[SunSeeker]

11. Typical lying scumbag corporation mouthpieces.

They claim there is "no data" their chemicals are on the Spence's property, but refuse to make any real effort to get the data. As noted in the article:

“To this day, and despite being warned again and again of the health risks and inadequacies of their monitoring program, no defendant has undertaken to install wells near the Spence’s house nor have they increased the monitoring system on the Northwest corner of the property,” the lawsuit said.

[cstanleytech]

12. Have the Spences had their land tested then Sun?

If so then what were the results?

[SunSeeker]

13. Installing a monitoring well and maintaining it runs at least 6 figures.

I doubt the Spence's can afford to do it. BFI was supposed to do it and hasn't. Then BFI has the nerve to complain about lack of data. I imagine the Spences have done some testing, whatever they can afford. Corporations get away with murder because their victims rarely have the resources to fight them.

In this case, the USEPA itself did tests and found contamination, as noted in the article:

In 1980, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered an investigation after it was determined the landfill was contaminated, 13 years before the Spence’s bought the land.

The investigation found that the landfill did pose a potential hazard to health and the environment and that the hazardous pollution was migrating from the disposal site. The investigation also raised concerns that chemicals could contaminate the local water supply.

BFI was ordered to monitor the pollution and determine the quantity of chemicals at the site.

In 1988, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources found 68 “deficiencies” at the landfill. The state said BFI had not calculated how much pollution had migrated from the landfill and found that the groundwater migration rate was “orders of magnitude” faster than originally theorized.

Yup, the same BFI who then told the Spences there was "nothing bad" in the landfill.

[cstanleytech]

16. I thought that the contamination they got in trouble for was the land the landfill is on and not

the land the Spences house is on?

[SunSeeker]

18. No, BFI also was busted for toxics migrating from its land.

As I note above, the article says the USEPA investigation found that the landfill did pose a potential hazard to health and the environment and that "the hazardous pollution was migrating from the disposal site." The investigation also raised concerns that chemicals could contaminate the local water supply.

Despite these findings, the scumbag lying BFI corporation mouthpieces told the Spences "nothing bad" was in the landfill.

Did you read the article? You think it was ok for BFI to tell the Spences that "nothing bad" was in the landfill? I don’t get why you are all over this thread trying to defend BFI.

[cstanleytech]

19. Now there isnt any call to try and put words in my mouth.

First I did read it but I dont recall there being any mention that specifically signaled out the land that the Spencer house is on as being contaminated.
As for the nothing bad part hopefully its part of the contract when they signed the papers for the property as it could potentially be used as leverage to get a settlement.
Lastly I am not defending BFI rather I am pointing out the simple fact that the Spences are going to have to prove in a court of law that their land is contaminated with evidence (and just because BFI hasnt put in well nor done monitoring isnt evidence though it does smell like they might be declining because they fear there is such contamination but thats just my suspicions and not actual evidence ) and that the contamination is what caused their illness.
If all that can be proven though then I agree BFI should have its feet held to the fire and be made to pay and pay big time.

[SunSeeker]

20. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm describing your actions. I just call them as I see them.

You challenge my "lying scumbags" assertion against BFI by asking what evidence the Spences have. That is exactly the tact of BFI's spokesman and his "no data" bullshit. The USEPA already found that toxics left BFI's property. The Spences live right next door to the BFI property. That is evidence.

Up the thread you claim the amount of toxics dumped at the landfill is irrelevant. That is simply not true, legally or otherwise. The more that was dumped, the more likely it was that a significant portion migrated, and the more harmful it was to the environment.

Whether or not the "nothing bad" quote is in "signed papers," is not what determines whether the Spences can recover against BFI for this blatant misrepresentation. Oral misrepresentation is actionable. Sure, it's better to have it in writing, but the Spences' testimony about oral statements BFI made to them can still come in as evidence.

Of course the Spences are going to have to prove their claims in court. But you suggesting that the article does not "specifically signal [sic]out the land that the Spencer [sic] house is on as being contaminated" is simply ignoring the findings of the USEPA and the reports of the Spences themselves. Circumstantial evidence, like animal deformities, is still evidence and can still go to proving the Spences' claims. Your assertion that "just because BFI hasnt put in well [sic] nor done monitoring isnt evidence" is just plain wrong. BFI's failure to comply with USEPA and state directives will be damning evidence against BFI.

I don't know who you are, I can only go by what you say in this thread. You ignore the evidence favoring the Spences, misstate the law to favor BFI and adopt the "no data" argument of BFI. To me, that is defending BFI.

[cstanleytech]

21. You really dont get it do you?

The courts will only care about what can be proven not what a person believes and in this case the Spences have to prove their case.
That means it doesnt matter if the company dumped 160 or 1 million pounds of waste what matters is that the Spences need to proof the land was containment by the dump leaking so yes the amount of what was dumped is immaterial.

[SunSeeker]

23. It is relevant to prove migration of toxics.

The amount dumped may not alone be enough to convince a jury that those toxics migrated onto the Spence's land, but a judge would certainly allow it in as relevant evidence.

If you dump 160 million pounds of dangerous chemicals onto 80 acres, you can be pretty sure it won't stay confined to those 80 acres.

[KurtNYC]

15. I have been looking for farm land and half of our county used to be orchards

Orchards used tons of DDT, arsenic and lead. It doesn't move, just stays in top 12 inches of soil. Not that hazardous unless you are out there digging and working row crops. Most of the orchards that are no longer in operation became housing, including McMansions on 2 to 4 acre plots.

Another hazard here is that people used to illegally truck hazardous waste out of NYC and then pay farmers $10 a load to dump it on their land. Medical waste, electronics waste, and who knows what else. I have been warned -- look for big rectangular bare spots or oddly shaped mounds that aren't manure/compost, especially ones which would be truck accessible. Test the water and soil (yourself) before you close a deal.

Another tool is Google maps satellite images -- they let you see the conditions and uses of neighboring properties and any dead zones, fuel tanks or dumping.

Some real estate agents think I am over-cautious but the story of this family in Liberty shows what is at stake -- thanks for sharing.

[cstanleytech]

22. Yup these days you gotta really check the background out of property as you cannot

just take the word of people anymore that the land isnt polluted or something

[FormerOstrich]

26. Times Beach Missouri

Once upon a time there was a town called Times Beach. The town had a waste hauler spray the town's roads. As it were, the guy started spraying toxic waste.

I remember clearly the Times Beach exit from I-44. The exit was completely removed and the road was removed, too. My understanding they fenced the town off. I know there were some local holdouts that didn't want to move. I don't remember how they eventually evicted them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri

I've never had much desire to visit the new Route 66 State Park on top of what was once the town.