Town sues firms over chemicals in groundwater | News

Gilbert is suing multiple manufacturers after toxic forever chemicals were detected, including in its groundwater.

Reportedly 4,000 lawsuits mostly by cities and states, including Arizona, have been filed against 3M and other chemical companies for contaminating drinking water with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – known as PFAS.

The long-lasting chemicals are found in household items, including nonstick cookware, shampoo and toilet paper and can cause health problems such as cancer and liver and kidney diseases.

Water Manager Rebecca Hamel said that Gilbert detected perfluorinated chemicals “at isolated locations” within the town water system when it tested for them in 2023. Water testing in 2013 found no traces of the man-made chemicals, she added.

“The contaminant is restricted to only a few sites and is not found town-wide,” Hamel said in an email. “Of the affected sites, one well site was immediately taken offline as a precautionary measure.

“The Town is fortunate to have a diversified water portfolio and can take the affected well sites temporarily offline to fully investigate and remedy, while still meeting system demand.”

Gilbert’s public water system uses surface water from the Colorado River, the Salt River and the Verde River, as well as groundwater from as many as 20 wells.

Hamel noted that additional sampling and testing are ongoing

“Two of the main challenges when addressing PFAS contamination are sampling and testing,” Hamel said. “Since PFAS compounds are found in a wide variety of materials and products, special sampling training is required for employees to prevent sample contamination.

“Gilbert’s staff has developed sampling protocols and received extensive training to prevent the contamination of water quality samples during collection.”

The town also has been actively engaged in evaluating and planning for upcoming regulations surrounding PFAS.

For example, Hamel said, the new design for the reconstruction of North Water Treatment Plant, currently underway, “proactively included the addition of Granular Activated Carbon contactors, which are an effective method for removing PFAS in the water.”

According to the town’s federal suit filed in December, the chemicals “have been detected in portions of the plaintiff’s property, including but not limited to plaintiff’s water and wastewater.”

“These compounds migrated through the subsurface and into the groundwater, thereby contaminating the surface water, soil (and) sediment as well as causing other extensive and ongoing damage to the plaintiff’s property,” the suit says.

“Plaintiff’s property has been, and continues to be, contaminated by defendants’ Flurosurfactant products.”

The suit claims that the companies knew as early as the 1980s that the chemicals were toxic to humans but continued to use PFAS in their products.

Because of the companies’ acts, Gilbert’s properties “have been and will continue to be contaminated with PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, creating an environmental hazard, unless contamination is remediated,” the suit contends, adding that it would cost Gilbert significant expense to assess, evaluate, investigate, monitor and remediate the contamination.

Hamel said there are several technology options available for the treatment of PFAS and that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach.

“Each available technology has its own limitations and cost implications and the quality of the water needing to be treated is highly variable from location to location,” she said. “In treating for PFAS at contaminated sources, Gilbert will need to fully understand the nature of the water quality at each source and select the most effective and affordable technology to address the contamination.”

The town is seeking money for damages and to “cover future costs to investigate, remediate, remove, filter, dispose of, treat, and monitor the PFAS contamination of plaintiff’s property” as well as any and all other damages recoverable under applicable state and or federal laws.

The town also wants damages and restitution for “the diminution of value” of its property and all reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Gilbert is seeking a jury trial. No court date has yet been set.

Attorney General Kris Mayes last May also filed suit against 3M and others for the chemicals’ “widespread pollution” in the state.

In June, 3M reached an agreement to pay between $10.3 billion and $12.5 billion to settle claims. There was no admission of liability by the company. The settlement would be payable over 13 years and has preliminary court approval.

The company at the time stated it will continue to address other PFAS litigation by defending itself in court or through negotiated resolutions. It also has announced that it plans to stop using PFAS in their products by the end of 2025.

Final court approval was given in February on a $1.18 billion Dupont settlement in a PFAS class action lawsuit.

Gilbert has filed a claim in both the Dupont and 3M settlements and will be entitled to a share of the proceeds of those settlements, according to Hamel.

“The litigation that Gilbert filed is to preserve its claims against the remaining non-settling defendants in the PFAS litigation,” she said.