Water Contamination Litigation: Essential Strategies for Municipal Budget Management
Discover how legal action against polluters can offset remediation expenses, strengthen municipal budgets, and ensure long-term financial resilience.
↓ Continue Reading Below ↓
Local government leaders are being asked to address increasingly complex issues while managing limited financial resources. Contamination caused by man-made chemicals is just one of many concerns that water systems and municipalities face today, but the financial burden of mitigating these chemicals in water sources can be significant. In order to get ahead of these expenses, elected and appointed officials are increasingly seeking to incorporate new and innovative funding sources into their budget and revenue plans.
Many have identified litigation against the manufacturers responsible for the pollution as an option to recover cleanup costs. For decades, large manufacturers have allowed hazardous substances to pollute our communities, leading to contamination of drinking water. Public and private agencies are often left to cover the costs of remediation — an expensive, ongoing challenge. However, litigation can serve as a powerful tool to recover clean-up costs, allowing municipalities to hold polluters accountable rather than passing financial burdens onto taxpayers.
This guide explores the key aspects of water contamination litigation, including historical context, how the legal process works, and essential considerations for agencies. Our goal is to provide the insights needed to approach these challenges and considerations to keep in mind when looking for a law firm who understands both water contamination and the unique pressures municipalities face.
Understanding Water Contamination Litigation
What is Water Contamination Litigation (and Why Does it Matter)?
Water contamination litigation is a legal strategy that represents a potential tool for entities to recover the costs of cleaning up hazardous chemicals in their water supplies by holding accountable the polluters responsible for the contamination. Rather than municipalities and utilities shouldering the costs to treat the affected water sources, this type of litigation leverages product liability law to bring claims against the manufacturers that created and distributed harmful contaminants.
Certain chemicals — such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — have widely been used in industrial and consumer products despite their known risks to human health and the environment. When these contaminants are detected in public water supplies through water quality testing, local communities are left to manage the expensive remediation process. Water contamination litigation provides a path for municipalities and utilities to recover these costs by holding manufacturers accountable under product liability law.
Understanding this legal avenue is critical for municipal leaders and water professionals, as it can help offset financial burdens while ensuring continued compliance with state and/or federal regulations. By pursuing litigation, agencies can secure the funding necessary to protect public resources — without passing the costs onto taxpayers.
Common Sources of Water Contamination Litigation
Over the past few decades, municipal water systems and utilities have used water contamination litigation as a vital tool to recover the costs of treating contaminated water. This legal strategy has been successfully applied to various contaminants, including 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP), MTBE, p-CBSA, PCE, PCBs and perchlorate – all of which pose significant risks to drinking water supplies.
The most notable recent cases have involved PFAS and resulted in landmark settlements for public water systems affected by contamination.
The Benefits of Water Contamination Litigation
For municipalities facing water quality challenges and rising treatment costs, litigation against chemical manufacturers serves as a powerful cost-recovery tool. By holding polluters accountable, water providers can recover financial resources to offset treatment expenses, reducing the burden on ratepayers while ensuring compliance with environmental laws at both the national and state levels.
A primary advantage of this legal strategy is shifting the financial burden of cleanup, treatment, and remediation from agencies and their ratepayers to the manufacturers responsible for producing and distributing the harmful chemicals. Many of these companies knew the significant risks of these chemicals yet profited from them while leaving local water providers to manage the long-term consequences. Successful litigation helps secure funds for critical infrastructure, ongoing water treatment, and environmental restoration efforts.
Beyond immediate cost recovery, litigation strengthens financial resilience for municipalities by funding:
- Advanced water treatment infrastructure: Implementing filtration systems to remove harmful contaminants like PFAS, TCP, 1,4-dioxane, and perchlorate.
- Ongoing maintenance and treatment costs: Ensuring water providers can continue providing safe drinking water without overburdening taxpayers.
- New water source development: Identifying and securing alternative water supplies when contamination renders existing sources unusable, whether through drilling new wells, purchasing water, or other supply solutions.
As water pollution continues to threaten public health, legal action serves as a crucial step in balancing environmental responsibility with financial sustainability. By leveraging litigation, agencies can ensure the long-term protection of their water resources —safeguarding both current and future generations.
Ensuring Long-Term Environmental and Public Health Protection
Municipal leaders play a critical role in maintaining safe drinking water and environmental integrity. By holding manufacturers financially responsible, litigation supports sustainable water management practices and enables water providers to proactively invest in clean water solutions that benefit both public health and future generations.
“Public health investments — such as improving access to quality housing, clean air and water, and safe and accessible transportation — improve the health of entire populations.”
– National Association of Counties (NACo)
Leveraging Environmental Litigation as a Municipal Budget Strategy
The Financial Burden of Water Treatment Costs
When water sources are affected by contaminants, water providers face substantial costs stemming from:
- Regulatory Compliance: Environmental regulations mandate that utilities maintain safe drinking water standards. Agencies must invest in advanced monitoring systems, more frequent testing, and treatment upgrades to comply with evolving regulations — costs that may require budget reallocation or rate increases.
- Emergency Response: When drinking water quality is compromised, municipalities may need to provide alternative water sources and implement public health measures. These emergency actions can divert funding from long-term infrastructure projects and other planned expenditures.
- Cleanup and Remediation: Treating contaminated water supplies often requires costly efforts, such as chemical treatments, upgrading filtration systems, and replacing infrastructure. The severity and extent of contamination dictate the level of treatment required, which can put a strain on municipal budgets.
- Legal Proceedings: Water providers may face enforcement actions from regulatory agencies or other impacted constituencies, resulting in legal fees, fines, and settlements. Beyond financial implications, regulatory violations and increased water rates can erode public trust in local governments and utilities.
Key Legal Issues and Regulations in Water Contamination Lawsuits
The Case for Water Contamination Litigation
Municipal leaders often hesitate when it comes to litigation — concerns about cost, time, and paperwork can make it feel overwhelming. But with the right firm, those worries become non-issues, making legal action a real option for cost recovery. Before ruling it out, here’s what to consider:
- No Financial Risk: There are firms who work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you don’t pay anything unless a positive outcome is achieved. There’s no risk — only the opportunity to recover funds your community needs.
- Minimal Time Commitment: A common concern among municipal leaders is the time litigation can take. While securing a resolution does require a process, the right legal team ensures that it’s not time-consuming for you. They do the work, manage the details, and remain steadfast in seeking accountability through litigation.
- No Administrative Burden: Another misconception is that lawsuits involve endless paperwork and bureaucratic headaches. An experienced legal team handles the heavy lifting, guiding and working with you through each step with minimal effort required on your part.
“SL Environmental Law Group has made every step of the process easy for us. The team’s experience with water contamination litigation meant incredible support on their part, relieving the burden on us.”
Vincent J. Roy
With the right legal representation, you’ll have an experienced team to manage the complexities, anticipate challenges, and keep your case moving forward. For PFAS-related claims, where litigation is well-established within the MDL, the process can be more streamlined — often requiring only basic information to get started. For other contaminants, proving the source of contamination is a critical first step. Once that’s established, a team like SL Environmental Law Group handles the legal complexities to seek the compensation your community deserves.
Beyond holding polluters accountable, successful litigation provides essential funding to restore water quality, upgrade infrastructure, and protect public health — without putting the financial burden on taxpayers or additional strain on your community’s budget.
The Evolution of Water Contamination Litigation
Over the past two decades, litigation has emerged as a vital tool for agencies looking to offset the high costs of treating contaminated water, while also ensuring public health and accountability. Legal action has led to some of the largest environmental settlements in U.S. history, particularly when it comes to shifting financial responsibility away from water providers and onto the corporations responsible for pollution.
Here are just a few milestones that demonstrate the growing power and impact of this legal strategy:
- New York & New Hampshire MTBE Cases: These landmark cases involved multi-million-dollar settlements against oil companies for contaminating groundwater with methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive known to pose significant health risks. New Hampshire recovered approximately $940 million through a mix of trial verdicts and settlements, while New York secured $225 million in similar legal actions.
- Pomona perchlorate Case: The City of Pomona in California sued for damages related to perchlorate contamination in its water supply, securing funds to remove the harmful chemical from its drinking water. In total, Pomona secured $30 million.
- TCP Litigation and Settlements: Numerous municipalities in California have pursued litigation against chemical manufacturers responsible for TCP contamination. Over the past 5+ years, SL Environmental alone has obtained more than $150 million in legal settlements for water systems, schools, and agribusinesses affected by TCP contamination in their water.
- PFAS Litigation & Settlements: The widespread contamination of drinking water by PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals,” has led to hundreds of lawsuits consolidated into a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) — one of the highest profile water contamination legal actions in recent history. These cases have resulted in large-scale settlements from major manufacturers to help municipalities address long-term water treatment costs.
Water contamination litigation continues to be a vital tool for agencies seeking to recover costs associated with contamination, ensure safe drinking water for their residents, and hold corporations accountable for environmental harm.
While no two water contamination cases are exactly alike, agencies typically share several common goals when pursuing a case against polluters, including:
- Recovering cleanup costs
- Ensuring safe drinking water for their community
- Holding polluters accountable
With over 20 years of experience in water contamination litigation, SL Environmental Law Group has partnered with hundreds of public and private agencies in water contamination cases involving several prominent contaminants:
Perchlorate Cases
City of Pomona Triumphs in 13-Year Legal Battle Over Perchlorate Contamination
In the late 2000s, the City of Pomona discovered perchlorate contamination exceeding California’s 6 ppb (parts per billion) regulatory limit in 14 of its drinking water wells. To protect residents, Pomona shut down the non-compliant wells and invested millions of dollars in a new treatment plant to remove perchlorate from its water supply.
Determined to hold the responsible parties accountable, The City of Pomona and SL Environmental Law Group began litigation against a fertilizer manufacturer identified as responsible for the contamination in 2010. Over the next 13 years, SL Environmental Law Group fought tirelessly—navigating multiple trials and appeals—to ensure the city received the financial recovery it deserved.
In 2023, that persistence paid off. The City of Pomona secured over $30 million to cover the costs of a new treatment plant and its ongoing maintenance.
City of Lindsay Wins $9.5 Million Settlement for Contaminated Well
In 2008, routine water testing revealed that one of Lindsay’s wells, Well 11, was contaminated with perchlorate. The city was forced to shut down the well, making it difficult to maintain an adequate water supply for its 13,000 residents and booming agricultural activities.
In 2010, Lindsay took legal action against the company responsible for selling the perchlorate-laden fertilizer which ultimately contaminated its well.
After years of litigation alongside SL Environmental Law Group, the City of Lindsay secured a $9.5 million settlement, which it used to offset the costs of installing and maintaining a new double-ion water treatment plant.
TCP Cases
Golden State Water Company Sues Groundwater Polluters And Wins
Golden State Water Company discovered 1,2,3-TCP in several of its drinking water wells in 2017 during routine testing.
The following year, they partnered with SL Environmental Law Group to pursue litigation. SL Environmental strategically chose to go through federal courts instead of state courts to accelerate proceedings.
As the first ever TCP case to be taken from state to federal court, Golden State Water Company’s case was settled in less than two years.
Settlement proceeds were used to pay for a new treatment plant and cover other contamination response costs, including the cost of purchasing expensive replacement water from alternative sources.
Sunny Slope Water Company Shifts TCP Cleanup Costs to Polluters
When Sunny Slope Water Company discovered TCP contaminants at dangerous levels in two drinking water wells, they faced two immediate challenges: finding alternative water sources and securing the funds for a filtration system to treat the contaminated wells.
Sunny Slope turned to SL Environmental Law Group, who relied on careful research and experience to identify the source of the contamination — and the polluters behind it.
In 2021, Sunny Slope and SL Environmental reached a settlement with the companies responsible for the contamination, allowing the water company to fully recover their cleanup costs.
The Evolving State of PFAS Regulations and Their Impact on Municipalities
PFAS has become a prominent point of discussion in water contamination litigation as the detrimental health effects of exposure to this group of chemicals have become more widely known.
PFAS have been manufactured extensively since the 1940s for use in a variety of consumer products, firefighting foams, and industrial applications. They are a type of “forever chemical,” and their non-biodegradable properties mean that they are still present in water, soil, and even the human body.
Over the past several decades, water utilities and other entities have discovered PFAS contamination in water sources worldwide. Over the past few years, hundreds of public and private agencies decided to sue PFAS manufacturers to recover treatment costs. Below is a quick look at the history of PFAS and PFAS contamination litigation in the U.S.:
- In 1947, 3M Corporation invented PFOA, part of the PFAS family of around 6,000 synthetic “forever chemicals.” DuPont later purchased these chemicals for their own manufacturing.
- In 1999, attorney Robert Bilott filed the first lawsuit against DuPont for contaminating water with PFOA.
- In 2001, Bilott and his team filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of individuals exposed to drinking water contaminated with PFOA from DuPont’s Teflon plant in West Virginia.
- In 2004, DuPont settled the class action and agreed to pay $300 million in settlement benefits.
- By 2013, 3,500 personal injury lawsuits against DuPont for the six diseases linked to PFOA exposure were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL).
- In 2017, the first DuPont MDL was settled for $671 million.
- In 2019, multiple plaintiffs filed cases alleging PFOA contamination stemming at least in part from the use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) that was consolidated into another multidistrict litigation: MDL-2873.
- In 2023, 3M and Dupont reached class action settlements for PFAS claims by public water systems in the MDL-2873, totaling $10.5-$12.3 billion and $1.185 billion, respectively.
- In 2024, Tyco and BASF reached settlements in PFAS litigation. Tyco agreed to pay $750 million and BASF settled for $316.5 million as part of broader cost-sharing agreements related to PFAS contamination claims.
- Phase 2 of MDL-2873 covers water systems that detected PFAS for the first time after June 2023. Eligible water providers can submit claims under the 3M and DuPont settlements until June 30, 2026, for DuPont and July 31, 2026, for 3M.
What are the PFAS MCLs and How Do They Affect Municipalities?
While PFAS litigation unfolded, regulatory bodies worked to establish enforceable standards to further define liability and remediation responsibilities. This brings us to the latest developments of federal PFAS regulations.
In 2024, the EPA released Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS chemicals based on existing evidence of their pervasiveness and danger to public health.
The MCLs set forth specific requirements for water systems and local governments on monitoring and remediation for PFAS contamination, while creating more urgency for systems to acquire funding for treatment costs.
Water systems have three years from the publication date to complete the initial monitoring required (by 2027). Local governments and water utilities must also inform the public of the measured levels of PFAS in their drinking water beginning in 2027. Water systems have five years from the publication date to implement solutions to reduce PFAS in their drinking water if they exceed the levels (by 2029).
These requirements bring further awareness to the potential hazards of PFAS and other contaminants, which can create significant community health risks and result in high costs for municipalities. PFAS litigation is an invaluable tool for helping municipal officials protect their budgets from the high costs of contamination while maintaining safe drinking water.
PFAS Contamination and MDL Litigation: A Coordinated Legal Approach
As mentioned above, in the past several years, hundreds of municipalities and water utilities have filed PFAS lawsuits against the manufacturers, claiming that their water supplies have been contaminated with PFAS, and these lawsuits have been consolidated into MDL 2873 for pretrial purposes, which speeds up the legal process while allowing each case to remain separate.
The AFFF MDL is comprised of several types of cases, including:
- Drinking Water Contamination Cases from municipalities and water providers affected by PFAS contamination in their water sources and seeking reimbursement for the costs of PFAS removal.
- Property Damage Lawsuits filed by businesses and landowners affected by PFAS contamination of land and other environmental damage caused by PFAS chemicals, such as in their wastewater operations.
- State and Sovereign Claims brought by state governments and sovereign entities seeking recovery for widespread environmental and public health damages caused by PFAS contamination.
- Personal Injury Cases, filed by individuals (often firefighters, military personnel, or airport workers) who were exposed to AFFF and later developed illnesses.
Landmark PFAS settlements for drinking water were reached as a result of AFFF MDL (MDL 2873) proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina:
3M Settlement
Days later, 3M announced the settlement for public water suppliers affected by PFAS “forever chemical” contamination, agreeing to pay up to $12.5 billion over 13 years.
DuPont Settlement
In 2023, the court reached preliminary approval on a settlement from DuPont and its related companies, Chemours and Corteva, for $1.1859 billion.
Tyco Settlement
In 2024, Tyco Fire Products agreed to a $750 million settlement to resolve claims related to PFAS contamination from its firefighting foam products.
BASF Settlement
Also in 2024, BASF reached a $316.6 million settlement to address PFAS contamination claims, further expanding the financial resources available for impacted systems.
PFAS in Drinking Water Settlements: Making the Case for Action
Access the GuideThe settlements resolved claims for public water suppliers affected by PFAS contamination in drinking water, but they do not conclude all litigation within the MDL, such as those related to property damages, personal injury, and more.
All other claims, including those affecting other municipal operations such as wastewater, landfills, airports, and fire training facilities, will continue to be litigated and are expected to be resolved by future settlement proposals from these and other defendants. There is no guarantee that any future settlements will include agencies who did not file their own lawsuits and, even if they did, entities have an opportunity to increase their potential settlement payouts by bringing their own legal action. In fact, water systems that filed suit over PFAS before the water settlements were announced, now stand to recover as much as 25% more than water systems who did not.
What to Expect From Dioxane Regulations Based on the Development of PFAS
PFAS isn’t the only contaminant reshaping the water contamination regulations and related legal actions. 1,4 dioxane is a solvent stabilizer found in some cleaning products, shampoos, and soaps. Mounting concerns about the chemical’s potential carcinogenic properties have brought it into the regulatory spotlight.
Like PFAS, 1,4-dioxane has been a topic of conversation in regulatory circles for many years. Both chemicals share several factors that may indicate that 1,4-dioxane may follow in the regulatory footsteps of PFAS, such as widespread contamination, potential health risks, and difficulty to treat.
The recent publication of the EPA’s 1,4-dioxane revised risk assessment might influence regulatory action at the state level and may lead to future federal action.
States are already taking action on 1,4-dioxane, with several beginning implementation of regulatory limits and treatment requirements ahead of any federal mandate. While no one can predict the regulatory path for 1,4-dioxane, it could be among the next water contaminants to be federally regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), following a similar path to PFAS and strengthening the case for municipalities to prepare for 1,4-dioxane-related testing, remediation costs, and potential litigation following the discovery of contaminated water systems.
Managing Water Contamination Risks
Navigating the Water Contamination Litigation Process
Like any legal process, water contamination cases follow a series of procedural steps to be taken by the plaintiffs, counsel, and defendants. Before an entity can initiate formal litigation, it must provide evidence of water contaminants and trace contamination back to the responsible parties.
Rather than navigating this process alone, agencies should partner with a reputable legal representative to determine their legal options and identify the best strategy.
Identifying Contamination Sources
Although water quality testing reveals the presence of a contaminant, tracing it back to the source is a separate, often time-consuming endeavor. An experienced legal team can be a critical resource during this process, as they are able to dedicate the time and resources needed to carefully research the contamination incident and identify the source(s) of the contaminant in your water system.
Building a Water Contamination Litigation Case
The litigation process is complex and requires insight into ongoing regulatory and legal developments related to water contamination, as well as real-world experience from past cases. It’s best to work alongside attorneys who specialize in environmental law and have a proven track record in the type of water contamination litigation you plan to pursue.
Engaging the Community
Prompt, action-oriented communication about contaminant detection can give your citizens peace of mind and build trust between you and your community. Inform and involve affected residents by providing a clear plan for addressing contamination and restoring access to safe drinking water.
Seeking the Most Favorable Legal Resolution
If you’re looking to recoup remediation costs for water contamination, finding the right legal partner is key. Whether your case is resolved via a settlement, trial verdict, or a combination of the two, a legal team with water contamination litigation experience will be able to guide you through each step of the process and fight for the most favorable outcome.
Litigation Support for Water Contamination Incidents
A reliable water contamination law firm will have a track record of water contamination cases in which they have achieved favorable settlements and trial outcomes for municipalities and other agencies, helping them collect financial compensation for contamination-related expenses rather than passing those expenses on to ratepayers.
What’s more, they regularly review past legal outcomes to identify trends and patterns in contamination incidents, community responses to those incidents, and the following litigation.
This level of insight enables them to adapt their legal approach to each client based on current regulatory and legal events and the municipality’s unique goals or the current state of their water system. Plus, a firm’s dedication to this specific type of litigation ensures they can help your agency move through the legal process with confidence and efficiency as they work to manage its complexities, anticipate challenges, and keep your case moving forward.
How to Select the Proper Legal Representation for Water Contamination Litigation
When considering litigation for water contamination, it is essential to select a law firm with experience representing public and private agencies in these types of cases.
A firm that focuses specifically on contamination litigation will know how to navigate the complexities of all legal proceedings and the evolving regulatory landscapes for public drinking water contaminants.
- An experienced law firm will guide municipalities and utilities through every step of the litigation process, which reduces the amount of work on your side and increases the chances of reaching the most favorable outcome.
- Law firms that focus specifically on water contamination litigation typically also have a greater breadth of knowledge of the water and wastewater industries, including developing regulations, litigation trends, and ongoing lawsuits. They also understand how utilities operate—their water sources, infrastructure, and industry terminology—allowing them to advocate more effectively for their clients.
- A firm’s track record can provide insight into their experience taking water contamination cases through trial and appeal. This demonstrates their dedication to seeking the most favorable outcome for clients rather than seeking a settlement by default.
- A competent legal team will work to understand the specific circumstances surrounding each client’s contamination issues. Legal counsel should help guide clients through every step of the journey to cost recovery.
Get Peace of Mind and Trusted Support at SL Environmental Law Group
When searching for reliable legal counsel for your water contamination case, it’s crucial to find a law firm with a measured track record of experience and experience in the specific type of litigation you plan to pursue.
With over 20 years of focused experience representing clients in contamination cases, SL Environmental Law Group is a trusted leader in the water litigation space. We’ve represented hundreds of municipalities, utilities and other public and private agencies in lawsuits involving numerous water contaminants including PFAS, perchlorate, TCP, MTBE, p-CBSA, PCE, and PCBs.
SL Environmental has helped over 400 clients recover more than $2 billion through settlements and trials since 2003. We operate on a contingency fee basis, ensuring no upfront litigation costs for water systems and their ratepayers. Our seasoned team excels at water contamination litigation while also providing tailored insights on regulatory impacts, contamination sources, and legal guidance.
Protect Municipal Budgets and Community Access to Safe, Clean Water
Water contamination litigation is a complex yet vital area of law that affects municipalities and communities across the country. As regulations for PFAS, 1,4-Dioxane, and other contaminants continue to evolve, agencies face new responsibilities and challenges as they work to protect their communities and maintain clean drinking water sources.
By navigating this landscape with experienced legal counsel, municipalities and utilities can confidently seek compensation for water contamination and secure funding for ongoing updates to their water systems.
Interested in Exploring Water Contamination Litigation as a Cost Recovery Strategy for Your Municipality?
SL Environmental Law Firm understands the critical value of recovering contamination cleanup costs to restore water systems and grow trust in your community. Our firm is not afraid advocate for you at every step of the litigation process to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for their actions, whether your case goes to trial or results in a settlement.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss your specific situation in more detail, please reach out to schedule a free consultation with our team today.
Ready to Discuss Your Specific Situation?
By meeting with our team, you can ask the questions you need to feel comfortable and be confident in the next steps of your agency's cost recovery strategy.
Reach out to our team today to set up a no obligation call.
Our attorneys are licensed in various jurisdictions, including California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Hampshire. Please refer to individual attorney bios for specific licensure.
This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.