Attorneys debate charges in water testing tampering case

• Reprints

Updated: October 31, 2011 1:37PM

A federal judge has delayed ruling on whether to dismiss criminal charges claiming United Water Services tampered with water testing at the Gary Sanitary District.

Attorneys for United Water argued during a hearing Tuesday morning at the U.S. District Court in Hammond that the government’s indictment doesn’t actually cite any illegal activity.

The company, as well as two of its former employees, Gregory Ciaccio and Dwain Bowie, are charged with raising chlorine levels just before daily samples were taken for tests then lowering it again after the samples were taken to amounts not strong enough to properly kill off E. coli bacteria.

United Water operated the GSD from 1998 until last year.

However, Steven Solow, attorney for United Water, argued during the hearing on a motion to dismiss that the GSD’s wastewater permit allowed for the company to raise and lower chlorine levels. “Those are not improper things to do,” Solow argued.

He added that United Water would increase the chlorine levels in the morning, which is when the samples were taken, because people use more water in the morning and that every waste water treatment plant in the world changes its chlorine levels throughout the day.

However, David Mucha, an attorney with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, argued that United Water’s actions did violate its permit. The daily samples are supposed to represent what the water is like at the plant during that day, not just at that instant in time, Mucha said.

“This case is very simple,” Mucha said. “They altered normal operations at the time of sampling.”

If the sample doesn’t represent all the water at the plant on the day of the sample, then it’s useless, he said.

He also dismissed Solow’s argument that raising and lowering the chlorine levels weren’t illegal. Mucha said that done on their own, each was fine but that they became illegal when coupled with being done right before and after tests were taken. He likened it to how people can legally drink and can legally drive but can’t legally drive drunk.

Further, Mucha said, the government has to prove only that a person knowingly tampered with water samples for a conviction. U.S. law does not require any other provision.

U.S. District Judge Rudy Lozano recessed the hearing to look at the permit and filings. Mary Hatton, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorneys office, said that a ruling likely wouldn’t come until after Aug. 1 because of deadlines for a filing by the defense.

Contact Teresa Auch Schultz at 648-3120.