ILNews

Indiana water utilities receive millions in atrazine settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than a dozen Indiana water utilities will receive checks of $100,000 or more as part of $105 million in settlement disbursements announced last week in the last phase of litigation involving the weed killer atrazine that contaminated more than 1,100 water systems nationwide.

Indianapolis is one of three cities that will receive checks of more than $1 million, according to the St. Louis law firm of Korein Tillery that announced Jan. 16 that checks were being distributed under the settlement approved in October in City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., 3:10-cv-00188.

The settlement was meant to reimburse communities for past expenses associated with removing atrazine from drinking water supplies. The herbicide manufactured primarily by Swiss company Syngenta is sprayed on corn crops but is a suspected endocrine disruptor that has been the subject of a special review by the EPA. Atrazine has been banned in Europe.

“Science has been fighting an uphill battle against giant pesticide manufacturers like Syngenta who claim that a little weed killer in your drinking water won’t hurt you,” said Korein Tillery senior partner Stephen M. Tillery. “Independent scientists now believe that even trace amounts can harm you and your children for generations to come.

“Every cent of the settlement fund will be distributed to class members,” Tillery said.

The settlement was approved Oct. 23 by Judge Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Tillery said the percentage of class participation in the settlement was unprecedented.



 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT