Stuart's desire for untainted water supply put city at odds with 3M in national lawsuit

David Peters, Stuart's former public works and utilities director, is apparently unfamiliar with the term, "close enough for government work." Or at least he wasn't willing to accept it as a mantra after learning the city's water supply had been contaminated with potentially harmful chemicals about seven years ago.

The city could have come into compliance with federal water quality regulations simply by diluting the tainted water with cleaner water. However, Peters wouldn't hear of it.

According to City Manager Mike Mortell and Mayor Troy McDonald, Peters took the presence of chemicals in "his" water system personally. He convinced the Stuart City Commission to invest in a state-of-the-art filtration system that would leach the chemicals down to an undetectable level.

"He didn't treat the water plant like a job," Mortell said. "He treated it like his kid."

As a result, the city now finds itself as a lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against 3M, a multinational company that reported $34.2 billion in sales last year alone. The trial is expected to begin Monday in a federal courtroom in Charleston, South Carolina.

More:Stuart replaced wells after EPA found too much PFOS and PFOA in drinking water

More:Stuart may try to ID, sue whoever polluted drinking-water wells with PFOS and PFOA

More:Stuart will spend $2 million for new system to remove contaminants from city water

The lawsuit, which has more than 4,000 plaintiffs, has drawn attention from coast to coast. The Wall Street Journal recently published a lengthy article about the case, with more coverage expected from other media outlets, including Consumer Reports, as the trial progresses.

If Stuart prevails at the trial, which is scheduled to last most of June, then 3M and other chemical manufacturers could potentially be liable for billions of dollars in damages.

Stuart is hoping to collect more than $100 million to cover already-paid and expected expenses from installing the new filtration equipment, as well as punitive damages.

City officials say the trouble began when the state Department of Environmental Protection found polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly called PFAS or "forever chemicals," in three of the city's 24 wells. The chemicals have been linked to various health problems, including cancer, reproductive problems and immune system suppression.

As soon as the contaminants were discovered, the city stopped using water from the tainted wells. However, city officials initially didn't know how the wells had become polluted.

An investigation revealed the affected wells were close to stations where firefighters used a popular type of fire-retardant foam in training exercises. The foam, which seeped underground and eventually into the wells, was manufactured and sold by 3M.

The city took steps to correct the problem, guided by Peters' recommendations.

"The City Commission could have easily kicked the can down the road," Mortell said. "The commission in 2017 didn't shy away from it. They asked Dave Peters: 'What do you need?' "

The city began using a type of water filter that can remove the contaminants, but only has a useful life of about one year, so regular replacements are needed. Also, city officials committed to building a new filtration plant.

Through the end of last year, Mortell said the city had spent just under $25 million to remedy the problem. Stuart water customers got a rate increase in 2017, partially to offset the corrective steps the city took.

"The rates that were charged were not solely for the new plant," Mortell said. "They were to cover the cost of operations."

Mortell and McDonald said the water leaving the city's plant has always been at safe levels, since the contaminants were discovered. They also said local residents owe Peters a debt of gratitude for his proactive approach to the situation.

"If Flint, Michigan, or Jackson, Mississippi, had a Dave Peters, would they be in that position?" McDonald asked. "The Dave Peters are rare in this world."

For his part, Peters declined to comment until the trial is over. Although he has retired as utilities director, the city hired him as a temporary representative while the case is pending.

3M didn't respond to inquiries as of this writing.

To prove its case, Stuart will have to demonstrate the firefighting foam caused the city's water contamination and the city suffered damages as a result of the contamination. Also at issue may be the extent to which 3M was aware the chemicals in the foam could be harmful.

The other plaintiffs in the case include other cities and state governments, which have also been forced to take steps to protect their water supplies, as well as some people who claim to have been sickened by the chemicals.

Stuart was apparently chosen as a lead plaintiff in the case at least in part because of the steps city officials took to neutralize the contaminants. The arguments the city's lawyers plan to make are considered to be representative of what other plaintiffs are planning to argue.

As a result of its position as lead plaintiff, Stuart could potentially gain more if a jury decides to award a big settlement in its favor.

If Stuart prevails, some or all of the other similar cases are likely to be settled out of court. Because of Stuart's relatively small population of about 18,000, the city's proportional share of an out-of-court settlement probably would be less than a jury verdict could bring.

Either way, city officials have already devised a plan for paying for the water plant improvements, and that plan isn't dependent on a financial settlement in the case.

If the city prevails, some or all of the award could be used to pay down the utility system's debt, pay future costs associated with the filtration work or do environmental cleanup at the contaminated sites.

Another possibility would be a rate rebate for Stuart's water customers, although neither Mortell nor McDonald wanted to commit to that option.

"I think it's better to wait, rather than speculating about what a jury might do," McDonald said.

This column reflects the opinion of Blake Fontenay. Contact him via email at bfontenay@gannett.com or at 772-232-5424.