"Furthermore upon information and belief that BWSC will sell water to Oil and Gas explorers
for fracking shale formations..."

Umm well, thank you Chizz for proving my point.Chizzang wrote:Page 17 of the lawsuit / article 6.04
"Furthermore upon information and belief that BWSC will sell water to Oil and Gas explorers
for fracking shale formations..."

I don't disagree with you necessarilyBaldy wrote:Umm well, thank you Chizz for proving my point.Chizzang wrote:Page 17 of the lawsuit / article 6.04
"Furthermore upon information and belief that BWSC will sell water to Oil and Gas explorers
for fracking shale formations..."


Well, at least the word is spelled out, but not in the context of negative connotations or consequences.Chizzang wrote:I don't disagree with you necessarilyBaldy wrote: Umm well, thank you Chizz for proving my point.
But Fracking is spelled out in the Lawsuit
and seen as a property devaluing factor

But, why was that added to the lawsuit?Baldy wrote: The company said they might sell water to them but only during the times of the year when demand isn't high.
The suit also says that the Tillersons train horses, too. So?Skjellyfetti wrote:But, why was that added to the lawsuit?Baldy wrote: The company said they might sell water to them but only during the times of the year when demand isn't high.

Why would they put that in the lawsuit?Baldy wrote:The suit also says that the Tillersons train horses, too. So?Skjellyfetti wrote:
But, why was that added to the lawsuit?