The City of Hastings, Minnesota, alleges that pollution containing the "forever chemical" PFOA from a nearby 3M facility contaminated five of its public drinking-water wells, according to Fox 9.
The verdict of this case will affect the city's population of about 23,000 people.
Here's what to know
Hastings said the contamination problem is serious enough that meeting federal drinking-water rules could require treatment infrastructure costing tens of millions of dollars, per Fox 9.
That claim appeared in an Aug. 26 lawsuit filed in Dakota County District Court accusing 3M of contaminating five municipal wells with PFOA. It's also considered a kind of "forever chemical" because of the amount of time it takes to break down.
The complaint mentioned the EPA's April 2024 maximum contaminant level for PFOA of 4 parts per trillion, as Fox 9 reported. Hastings argued that because public water systems must comply with that limit, all five affected wells need treatment.
More background
PFOA persists in the environment and in human bodies rather than degrading quickly. According to Fox 9, studies have connected exposure to PFOA with harms including liver injury, thyroid problems, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and even kidney and testicular cancers.
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
Hastings traced the alleged pollution to years of air releases from smokestacks and other sources at 3M's Cottage Grove operation. In Fox 9's summary of the complaint, the company is described as having produced PFOA there from roughly the 1940s until 2002.
The city said 3M lacked key air controls during some years, citing a 1978 internal meeting saying PFOA production cells had no air scrubbers. Hastings argued that prevailing winds also carried pollution southeast, where they settled on soil and later seeped into groundwater feeding the city's wells.
What's being done?
Hastings is suing to recover treatment costs rather than leaving the expense of installing and operating advanced systems to local taxpayers or utility customers.
Meanwhile, Fox 9 stated that 3M disputed any link between its Cottage Grove site and the PFOA detected in Hastings' wells.
Where can I learn more?
Hastings isn't the only community trying to make chemical manufacturers cover the cost of PFAS contamination. People in many areas are battling over who should pay for cleanup and water treatment.
• In Wisconsin, Wausau moved to hold manufacturers accountable for PFAS-tainted drinking water.
• In California, Santa Clara County sued major companies over harmful chemicals in local water.
• Water agencies nationwide joined a coalition seeking treatment costs from PFAS manufacturers.
If your area is in a similar situation, local advocates and organizations don't have to start from scratch. There are many examples to learn from, and they could help bring cleaner water to your community too.
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.
