Ecuador Indians plan to sue Texaco over polluted water
Date: 08-May-03
Country: ECUADOR
Author: Amy Taxin
Flanked by U.S. and Ecuadorean attorneys in the capital Quito, Laura Mendua, 52, said she did not drink the rainwater she collected for fear that it was tainted by pollutants allegedly dumped by Texaco more than a decade ago.
"When I bathe a rash appears all over my skin," the petite Cofan Indian woman, who wore red face paint, told a Spanish interpreter in her native language.
Mendua is one of 30,000 Amazon jungle residents planning to file a suit this week demanding ChevronTexaco spend $1 billion to clean up oil-laden water allegedly dumped by a subsidiary in the first time the decade-old case will be heard in Ecuador.
The Indians' lawyers, set to file the suit in Lago Agrio yesterday, say Texaco Petroleum Co. dumped 18.5 billion gallons (70.3 billion litres) into unlined pits, estuaries and rivers between 1972 and 1992.
Plaintiffs say Texaco should have re-injected oily water into the ground instead of releasing it into the environment. Plaintiffs said the release saved the company $4 billion.
"The main argument is that Texaco preferred a cheaper technology even though they knew there was another one out there that would have polluted less," said attorney Alberto Wray.
ChevronTexaco argues its water-treatment techniques were allowed in Ecuador and other nations and that it has paid for a $40 million clean-up project approved by the government.
"What we've always said is the $40 million remediation program was the way that we met our obligation to ensure there was no lasting impact," ChevronTexaco spokeswoman Maripat Sexton told Reuters.
The Texaco case has fueled suspicion of oil companies among many Ecuadorean Indian communities and contributed to violent protests aimed at keeping firms out of the Amazon.
Texaco, which merged with Chevron in 2001, said it treated produced water in a three-stage process before releasing it into the environment and that re-injection was not required.
The case was first filed in 1993 in the United States. But the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling dismissing the suit on jurisdictional grounds last year and said that "Ecuador would be a more convenient location" for it to be heard.
