Troubled waters
Latest news:
2006: IUED vs. Haifa Chemicals
In May 2006, IUED has sued Haifa Chemicals for compensation for repeatedly failing to meet the conditions of the 1996 court-mandated agreement.
IUED's ongoing monitoring of effluent discharges at the Kishon River plant confirms that Haifa Chemicals continues to release substances into the river at rates far in excess of those specified in the agreement. Moreover, Haifa Chemicals has failed to meet the schedule of technological improvements dictated in the binding agreement.
The case has been filed at the Tel Aviv District Court and a hearing date is awaited. IUED is seeking compensation of approximately $1.1 million in line with the conditions of the 1996 agreement.
Attorney Tzipi Iser Itzik, executive director of IUED points out that Haifa Chemicals has repeatedly tried to avoid fulfilling the conditions of the agreement while continuing to dump its toxic wastes into the Kishon River.
Background
The Kishon River, flowing into the Mediterranean Sea just north of Haifa, tops Israel’s list of rivers-in-distress. As the country’s most notorious environmental “hot spot,” the Kishon has been linked to cancer illnesses among dozens of Israel Navy divers who trained in the river’s chemical-fouled waters.
Haifa Chemicals Ltd.: foremost polluter of the Kishon River
Over the last decade, IUED has waged a tireless enforcement campaign against one of the river’s primary polluters, fertilizer manufacturer Haifa Chemicals Ltd. The factory, for years, has discharged huge quantities of nitrates, heavy metals and other contaminants into the river and, from there, into Haifa Bay.
1994: IUED vs. Haifa Chemicals
In the face of longstanding official indifference, IUED brought criminal charges against Haifa Chemicals and its directors in 1994, under a seldom-used citizen suit provision of Israel's water laws. Since that time, IUED has waged a tireless legal campaign to compel the company to bring its wastewater discharges into line with accepted environmental standards.
Haifa Chemicals is owned by Trans Resources Inc., a US-based, Fortune 500 corporation with annual sales in excess of $500 million.
1996: Court-mandated Agreement
After two years of intensive litigation, IUED negotiated an enforcement regime binding Haifa Chemicals to take necessary steps to rein in the factory’s pollution. Under a court-approved agreement, the company committed to make a series of pollution control investments and to uphold specific, agreed-upon standards for some 18 pollutants.
During the years that followed, IUED closely tracked the factory’s progress in developing and installing pollution control technology. When it became clear, in 1999, that Haifa Chemicals had fallen behind schedule, IUED notified the company that it intended to renew legal action to enforce the 1996 agreement.
2000: New commitment
In June 2000, Haifa Chemicals signed a unilateral commitment accelerating its compliance with certain key standards, and guaranteeing that it would bring the factory into full compliance with all agreed-upon daily discharge limits by November 2001 (the final deadline set by the 1996 agreement), even if it had to cut back on production in order to comply. The company, in addition, promised full disclosure of discharge data and unrestricted IUED access to the site for monitoring purposes.
A Change in Tactics
As the final deadline neared, Haifa Chemicals’ management realized that the factory would not be able to meet the agreed-upon discharge limits while maintaining full production levels. Rather than scaling back production, the company claimed that it was bound only to meet monthly average standards, allowing for wide variations in daily discharges.
Knowing the environmental devastation to the Kishon River that would result from these weaker standards, IUED insisted upon the company’s adherence to daily discharge limits.
2002: Haifa Chemicals' S.L.A.P.P. attempt
On April 14, 2002, Haifa Chemicals served IUED with a S.L.A.P.P. (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit, seeking to annul its agreement with IUED, demanding reimbursement of all enforcement penalties and attorneys’ fees paid to IUED as well as damages paid to other plaintiffs over the course of the eight-year litigation.
The suit was a further attempt by Haifa Chemicals to wear down IUED’s determination to hold the company accountable for its environmental performance.
2005: The S.L.A.P.P. suit fails
In spring 2005, Judge Ilan Shilo of the Tel Aviv District Court resoundingly rejected Haifa Chemicals' suit, outrightly dismissing their interpretation of the agreement. Judge Shilo severely censured Haifa Chemicals for attempting to manipulate the legal system in order to evade their environmental responsibilities.