In the past, I told you about the problems with MTBE. This was the gasoline additive that, as one consultant recently put it, never should have been added.

While MTBE was supposed to improve air quality, there is at least a legitimate debate over whether that happened. Ater MTBE was introduced, people complained of headaches. But headaches were the least of everyone's problem. The biggest problem is that the MTBE started leaking from the underground storage tanks at gas stations and is now blamed for polluting some drinking water supplies.

Drinking water wells throughout the country are being affected as a result of this EPA blunder. And the oil companies and gasoline blenders share in the fault.

Some California municipalities have already stopped drawing groundwater for drinking purposes. And, it may very well be that the problems thus far reported are the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps over the next 10 years, we'll be seeing many more drinking water supplies, both private wells and municipal water supplies, that are under threat because of MTBE.

In fact, several lawsuits has already been filed on behalf of private well owners and water providers against the major oil companies. Of course, the oil companies will point the finger back to the EPA, the agency that made them put this poison in gasoline in the first place. And suing the EPA is a tough row to hoe.

After years of complaining, the feds finally started to pay attention to this problem. Now the federal government and the states appear to be ready to curtail the use of MTBE. One bill recently passed a Congressional subcommittee and similar bills are in various stages of passage in the states.

The irony of all of this should not escape us. The EPA, which is charged with protecting us from polluters, is probably responsible for one of the largest, most far reaching pollution problems in recent history. How could the agency have imposed this MTBE requirement without really first evaluating it? And certainly, the EPA would not do something so short sighted again, right?

Maybe, but maybe not. It appears the EPA may make the same kind of poor decision once again. You see, the feds have been suggesting believe that if MTBE can't do the job, then ethanol, a chemical that is made from corn, may be the answer.

If only it were that simple. Various studies, including one cited by a federal court, suggest that ethanol may be release poisons and may enhance smog. In other words, the suggestion is that ethanol may not be any better than the MTBE it may replace.

When EPA attempted to mandate ethanol use in 1995, it lost in court. A judge found that EPA conceded that the additive might make air quality worse. Others suggest that ethanol may eat away at rubber fittings, which can cause engine fires. Cars were recalled in 1987 in the U.S. due to concerns relating to this issue.

In an editorial appearing in the March 23, 2000 edition of USA Today, the paper took the position that we should not rush to ethanol as an MTBE substitute. The paper cited many sources which suggest that ethanol may cause more problems than it can possibly solve. Assuming it can solve any problems at all.

Can the EPA learn from its mistakes? Large agencies are sometimes so wrapped up in bureaucratic knots that they can't steer themselves away from silly reasoning.

Calm heads need to prevail and the agency has to obtain all of the facts before it imposes any more gasoline additive requirements on us. Science, not politics must control.

Perhaps, after careful evaluation, the EPA will determine scientifically that ethanol is the best solution. Thus far, however, there appear to be numerous reasons to suggest that ethanol is far from a reasonable solution to any issue; except how to make certain large agricultural companies very wealthy.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.