By Dan Murphy
One of my favorite local news sources to check out when they post is the Croton Chronicle and its Editor-Publisher, Michael Balter.
One of Balter’s stories that I recently enjoyed is titled Croton sues 17 chemical companies for allegedly contaminating the village’s groundwater. https://thecrotonchronicle.substack.com/p/croton-sues-17-chemical-companies
The story references a lawsuit recently filed by the Village in State Supreme Court in Westchester. Below is the complaint filed against 17 corporations, mostly Chemical companies.
“This action arises from the foreseeable contamination of groundwater by the use of aqueous film-forming foam (“AFFF”) products that contained per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), including perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”).
PFOA is a fluorosurfactant that repels oil, grease, and water. PFOA, and/or its chemical precursors, are or were components of AFFF products, which are firefighting suppressant agents used in training and firefighting activities for fighting Class B fires. Class B fires include fires involving hydrocarbon fuels such as petroleum or other flammable liquids.
PFOA is mobile, persists indefinitely in the environment, bioaccumulates in individual organisms and humans, and biomagnifies up the food chain. PFOA is also associated with multiple and significant adverse health effects in humans, including but not limited to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, high cholesterol, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy induced hypertension.
At various times from the 1970s through today, Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold AFFF products containing PFOA, and/or its chemical precursors, and/or designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the fluorosurfactants and/or perfluorinated chemicals (“PFCs”) contained in AFFF (collectively, “AFFF/Component Products”).
Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold AFFF/Component Products despite knowing that PFAS are toxic, persist indefinitely, and would be routinely released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by Defendants.
Since its creation in the 1970s, AFFF designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold by Defendants, and/or that contained fluorosurfactants and/or PFCs designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold by Defendants, was sold to the military,
fire training facilities, fire departments or airports in the area near Plaintiff’s water system, which used it as directed and intended by Defendants, and subsequently released it into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, resulting in widespread PFAS contamination.
Plaintiff is the owner and operator of a water system serving approximately 8,000 residents located in and around Croton-on-Hudson, NY.
Plaintiff’s system draws the drinking water it provides to customers from groundwater wells.
Plaintiff has detected PFAS in its groundwater wells.
On information and belief, the PFAS contamination described above is a direct and proximate result of fire protection, training, and response activities in the area near Plaintiff’s water system, resulting in the migration of PFAS into Plaintiff’s water supply.
In order to ensure that it can continue to provide clean and safe water to residences, Plaintiff has and will continue to take actions to address the above contamination of its property and its potable water supply caused by the Defendants.
Such actions include but are not limited to additional testing and monitoring for PFAS; planning, designing, purchasing, installing, and maintaining water filtration systems to remove these chemicals; infrastructure modifications; contingency planning; and community outreach.
Due to the persistent and long-term nature of PFAS contamination, Plaintiff is expected to suffer damages and incur the costs associated with these and other ongoing necessary remedial actions for many years to come.” End of complaint.
The Village also alleges in the suit: failure to warn, negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and punitive damages; no amount given.
The suit was just filed with the Westchester County Clerk
The complaint appears to seek compensation for testing, monitoring, and, if needed, repairing the water system.
But the other piece to Balter’s story is that when he went to the Village for comment, they referred to a water report (which all homeowners get) that found the water was safe for drinking.
So which one is it? The Village is suing the chemical companies for impacting their water supply, yet the water report finds it safe and drinkable.
I also found this story interesting because if this could happen in Croton, could it happen to me? Croton has a unique way of delivering water to its residents compared to most Westchester communities.
I subscribed to Balter’s Substack page, and I recommend you do the same.