Wyoming County property owners accuses surface mining operators of degrading wells.
PINEVILLE — Fourteen Wyoming County property owners are suing surface mining operators, alleging nuisance, trespassing and insufficient measures taken to prevent damages.
Jennifer L. Chambers, Tammy Cline, Justine Cline, Gary Sparks et al filed a complaint April 7 in Wyoming Circuit Court against Dynamic Energy Ic.
and Mechel Bluestone Inc.,alleging failure to comply with the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act.
According to the complaint, due to the the defendants’ mining activities, the plaintiffs have suffered degradation in the quality of water coming from their wells.
The suit says they notice discoloration and foul odor emanating from their water.
The plaintiffs say they have suffered personal injuries, real and personal property damages, annoyance and inconvenience.
The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, a replacement of their water supply, compensatory and punitive damages, interest and all other appropriate relief.
They are represented by attorneys Kevin W. Thompson and David R. Barney Jr. of Thompson Barney in Charleston.
Wyoming Circuit Court Case number 17-c-57 Organizations in this Story Wyoming Circuit Court 100 Main and Bank Streets Pineville, WV 24874 , More News

New Iowa law limits livestock nuisance lawsuits.
PROTECTION: The 2017 Iowa Legislature in March passed a bill limiting the amount of damages awarded in a lawsuits against livestock producers.
Legal Issues: Governor signs bill capping damages that livestock producers would face in nuisance lawsuits.
Terry Branstad on March 29 signed legislation into law limiting the amount of damages awarded in livestock nuisance lawsuits.
The new law is needed, he said, “because nuisance lawsuits are increasing and creating instability in the livestock industry, a very important part of Iowa’s economy.” The bill states that the purpose of the legislation is to encourage those involved in animal agriculture to adopt prudent and generally used management practices for their animal feeding operations.
The Responsible Farm Protection Bill, Senate File 447, establishes a section in Iowa Code to provide nuisance protection to responsible livestock farmers.
Qualifying for nuisance protection To qualify for the nuisance protection, a livestock farmer must comply with state and federal law and use existing prudent management practices reasonable for the operation.
The landowner installing the cattle guard must own the property on both sides.
• House File 443/Senate File 357 was signed into law by the governor on March 23.
This bill deems that the law on electrical licensing not be applicable to a person performing any installation on a farm, if the person is associated with the farm as an owner, a relative or employee of the owner, or an operation or manager of the farm.

Honeywell will have to face class claims for negligence, nuisance, trespass and medical monitoring in a New York water contamination case, the Northern District of New York ruled Feb. 6 ( Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. , 2017 BL 34914, N.D.N.Y., No.
The ruling came in closely-watched litigation over pervasive PFOA contamination in the town’s water supply, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York wrestled with unsettled issues of New York tort law in its decision.
“This is a wonderful decision for the people of Hoosick Falls, who may now proceed with their lawsuit,” Robin Greenwald, of Weitz & Luxenberg in New York City told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 7.
“The court also invited the parties to appeal the decision, and we are presently considering our appellate options,” Pokedoff said in an e-mail.
Private water well owners also have a possessory interest in wells harmed by PFOA trespasses, and private nuisance claims may proceed because of the “special loss” well owners suffer from the installation of monitoring equipment, the court said.
It did, however, dismiss private nuisance claims brought by municipal water users.
Those plaintiffs presented public, rather than private, nuisance considerations, the court said.
Medical Monitoring Claims The companies also argued New York law barred medical monitoring claims brought by Baker and other plaintiffs with elevated PFOA levels, at least where there is no existing diagnosis.
There are “several complex and novel issues of New York law as to which the existing case law is significantly muddled,” and they warranted an immediate appeal of the order to the Second Circuit.
The law offices of Weitz & Luxenberg represented the plaintiffs.