Environmental Litigation

Cities, counties and municipalities have also been takingaction against corporations for the environmental violations and damage they have caused. The Federalstatutory scheme as well as common law providesvarious mechanisms for cities, towns and municipalitiesto seek redress for the significant costs of environmentalclean-up and other costs they have expended as a resultof dumping and other environmental violations byguilty corporations. For example, RCRA (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) specifically allows aplaintiff, including cities, counties and municipalities to seek to compel the defendant corporation to clean uppollution, including by means of providing for injunctiverelief and abatement of polluting activities. The CERCLAlaw, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act, allows plaintiffs to seekto recover costs incurred in removing hazardous wastesand repairing contaminated sites. In addition, the

Clean Water Act (“CWA”), which prohibits the discharge of pollutants, contains a citizen suit provision (33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)), which allows “any citizen” (including cities, counties and municipalities) to commence an action against “any person” (including corporations) to seek injunctive relief and recover damages caused by the discharge of the hazardous substances.

Recourse is also available under common law, including under theories of (i) strict liability, applicable where a corporation conducts an “abnormally dangerous” activity (in which case the corporation can be held liable despite having exercised all possible care); (ii) public nuisance, which provides for recovery for activities such as the contamination of an aquifer or other natural resources, or noise or air pollution; and (iii) trespass, which is applicable where contaminants invade land or resources held by local governments.

Local governments have used these various mechanisms of seeking relief for environmental contamination and

other harms by commencing litigation against the violator corporations. For example, the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota brought suit against 3M Company (“3M”), a manufacturer of PFAS. PFAS is a man-made chemical used in fire-suppressing foam previously used by firefighters and a number of consumer products, including carpets, clothing, non-stick pans, paints, polishes, waxes, cleaning products, and food packaging. The lawsuit alleges that 3M had disposed of PFAS-containing wastes at its facility and a local landfill, resulting in contamination of ground water, including the local drinking water supply. Lake Elmo sought recovery of costs it spent constructing an alternate water supply. See City of Lake Elmo v. 3M Co., No. 16- 2557 ADM/SER, 2017 WL 630740 (D. Minn. Feb. 15, 2017). The plaintiff City of Lake Elmo overcame 3M’s motion to dismiss and other arguments. In related litigation, the state of Minnesota was able to recover a $850,000,000 settlement from 3M, some of which funds are supposed to be used to help clean of St. Elmo’s water supply.

In another action seeking to recover damages for environmental contamination at the hands of major corporations, several Long Island counties brought suit against Dow Chemical, Ferro Corp., and Vulcan Materials Co. based upon their dumping of 1,4 dioxane, a manufacturing solvent used in the manufacture of industrial degreasers, laundry detergents and other household products. The lawsuit claims the defendants’ dumping of 1,4 dioxane has contaminated the counties drinking water. The lawsuits — which seek unspecified damages and cleanup costs — cite defective design, failure to warn about the dangers, negligence, public nuisance and trespass. The first lawsuit was filed in 2017 by the Suffolk County Water Authority, which serves about 1.2 million residents. See Suffolk County Water Authority v. The Dow Chemical Co., et al., Case No. 17-cv-6980.

Subsequently nine (9) additional county water suppliers followed suit, specifically Port Washington Water District, Roslyn Water District, Water Authority of Great Neck North,Oyster Bay Water District, Garden City Park WaterDistrict, West Hempstead Water District, Carle PlaceWater District, Jericho Water District, and AlbertsonWater District. These counties serve an additional 200,000 residential and business customers. Thecost to clean up the contaminated water supply isestimated to be in excess of $300 million.

In sum, there are several viable means of legal redressfor cities, counties and municipalities facing harm totheir citizens – and millions and millions in clean-upcosts caused by the dumping and other environmental wrongdoing by major corporations. With the help ofinformed counsel, cities, counties and municipalities can seek legal redress and substantial recoveries forsuch environmental and other wrongs – and resultantmillions in damages — such corporations have caused.

Read about PFC Exposure, potential sources and serious associated health effects.

Download at bit.ly/waterdistricts