Savannah wants companies that make, sell, use and discharge the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) found in Savannah’s water supply to pay for the treatment needed to remove these “forever chemicals.”
The city filed a complaint on Feb. 5 in Chatham County Superior Court against 65 companies ranging from chemical giant Dupont to carpet manufacturers and paper mills.
Through a spokesman the city declined to comment on the litigation. But the 60-page complaint filed in Chatham County Superior Court lays out its argument plainly. Read the complaint here.
“The EPA has found that PFAS are likely to cause an array of adverse health and environmental effects, including but not limited to, low birth weight in children, miscarriage, and cancer. The current scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of PFAS in drinking water,” the complaint states.
“The Defendants in this case, which belong to a variety of different industries, have all caused or contributed to these toxic chemicals invading the Plaintiff’s source water supply that is used to produce drinking water.”
The city alleges the defendants knew or should have known of the harmful effects of PFAS.
The U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency issued the first ever drinking water standards for PFAS chemicals in April. The final rule requires that water systems must provide the public with information on the levels of these PFAS in their drinking water beginning in 2027. Public water systems have until 2029 to implement solutions that reduce six PFAS chemicals if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed the established limits.
Savannah is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in a jury trial. The compensatory damages would pay for “filtration equipment, piping, and adequate permanent facilities necessary to operate filtering systems sufficient to remove all PFAS from drinking water.” It also seeks to prevent additional releases of PFAS into Savannah’s water supply.
The city notes in its complaint that PFAS manufacturer 3M has concluded that reverse osmosis is the only treatment method capable of removing PFAS. The city currently does not use reverse osmosis, a water treatment process uses a partially permeable membrane to remove contaminants.
Widespread litigation
Savannah is far from the only city involved in PFAS litigation, which has proliferated across the country. Lawsuits accusing major chemical companies of polluting U.S. drinking water with toxic PFAS chemicals led to over $11 billion in settlements in 2023, Reuters reported. Cities in Northwest Georgia, home to the PFAS-using carpet industry, have been at the forefront in the Peach State. Rome settled its suit against PFAS users and manufacturers, including 3M and Dupont, for about $279 million, the AJC reported last year. The city of Calhoun was named as a defendant when the Coosa River Basin Initiative alleged it violated federal law by allowing PFAS in drinking water. Calhoun entered into a consent decree last year that will see an overhaul of its wastewater treatment, upgrades to drinking water treatment and monitoring of wells, the Coosa River Basin Initiative reported.
The uptick in PFAS litigation indicates the scope of the problem.
“This is a common strategy for cities, but they shouldn’t have to do this litigation,” said Jean Zhuang, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represented the Coosa River Basin Initiative. “PFAS polluters throughout the country should be the ones with the burden of removing PFAS from their waste to keep it out of our drinking water sources in the first place.”
Savannah, the largest municipal supplier of drinking water on the coast, posts its PFAS information online here. Testing underway since 2021 has shown the levels of two PFAS chemicals – PFOA and PFOS – in the treated water withdrawn from the Savannah River to be above the EPA’s limit of 4.0 parts per trillion at times.
City Council last May passed a resolution outlining the threat to drinking water from PFAS.
Increased reliance on river
Savannah draws water both from wells and from Abercorn Creek, a tributary of the Savannah River, with the larger portion coming from the creek. That’s because past overuse of the Floridan aquifer has resulted in forced reductions in the Savannah area to protect the aquifer from saltwater intrusion. Georgia regulators have been working with area water users for almost two decades to remedy the effects of previous overpumping.
The city’s water withdrawal permit from the state allows it to pull up to 55 million gallons a day from its pump station in Rincon. While Savannah is the only coastal Georgia municipality that withdraws from a river for drinking water, other municipalities in Chatham County, as well as Effingham County buy some of that treated water from Savannah.
Groundwater, mainly from the Floridan aquifer, is the main source of drinking water for most of Coastal Georgia. Groundwater here is better protected from industrial pollutants and is not the subject of the city’s lawsuit.
The lawsuit comes as Savannah is gearing up to increase its use of surface water to meet the demands of rapid development in the area. Gov. Brian Kemp in January made public his proposal for $500 million in loans and grants to Savannah, and Effingham and Bryan counties to expand the treatment and supply of drinking water from the Savannah River. The plan, included as part of Kemp’s mid-year budget proposal, is expected to be approved by the state legislature. Savannah plans to eventually draw up to 100 million gallons a day from the river.
The Ogeechee Riverkeeper, an advocacy organization, has urged the city to prioritize the use of aquifer water for drinking and agriculture as much as possible while earmarking surface water for industrial uses. The PFAS complaint provides a case in point.
“The argument all along has been surface water has contaminants that the groundwater does not,” said Ogeechee Riverkeeper Damon Mullis. “Even if it’s treated to meet drinking water standards, there are still trace contaminants and things that aren’t regulated, that are in the (surface) water that the groundwater doesn’t have. So there’s a human health component there.
“There’s also an equity argument,” he continued. “The drinking water ratepayers should not be subsidizing industry by paying for the increases of cost to treat river water. The groundwater is there. It’s pristine, and is a lot less expensive to get it to drinking water standards.”
Still, Mullis is happy to see polluters pay for clean up.
“This is going to cost a lot of money, and it shouldn’t be the ratepayers that pay for it,” Mullis said. “It should be the polluters and the chemical manufacturers that were acting in bad faith for a very long time.”
PFAS are not typically a concern for wildlife unless they’re in very high concentrations, Mullis said.
Legislation aims to protect PFAS users
A bill working its way through the Georgia Legislature, House Bill 211, would shield companies that use PFAS, but not PFAS manufacturers.
“No PFAS receiver shall be held liable for damages in an action involving a liability claim arising from or related to their intended or incidental use, receipt, or disposal of PFAS,” the bill states.
April Lipscomb, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, disagrees with the bill’s approach.
“HB 211 could create a disincentive for industries to stop using these harmful chemicals in their products, which could add more PFAS pollution to an already pervasive problem. Rather than letting industrial sources of PFAS pollution off the hook for harm to people and the environment through this bill, the legislature should be focusing on how to stop these forever chemicals from entering our environment.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.