In reference to Environmental law: You are the City Manager in the city of Willoughby.  You handle major decisions with respect to the city’s budget.  Six months ago, you determined that the cost of water from the neighboring city’s treatment facility was too expensive.  You located a less expensive alternative for supplying your city the water it needed by obtaining water from a nearby lake.  This lake’s water was potable, and deemed safe. Though the water was safe to drink, the water contained minerals that caused the lead water supply pipes in your city to corrode.  This corrosion released lead into the drinking water and your citizens drank lead-contaminated water for an extended period of time. The citizens sued for the contamination and the resulting health consequences.  They argue that the city should have known of the potential corrosion of the pipes.  You defend the city by arguing that the water was perfectly safe, and citizens should have modern PVC pipes in their homes instead of lead, which has not been used for years because of safety reasons. Using the concepts in your reading, who is right here and why?  Does the other side have a valid argument at all?