Detroit

Michigan Court to Hear PFAS Contamination Case Against Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority

AI Assisted Icon
Published on November 26, 2024
Michigan Court to Hear PFAS Contamination Case Against Gerald R. Ford International Airport AuthoritySource: Google Street View

In a recent development concerning environmental contamination in Michigan, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a decision that favors holding court proceedings at a state level. As reported by Michigan's Attorney General's office, the lawsuit against Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (GFIAA), initiated by Attorney General Dana Nessel, will continue in the 17th Circuit Court in Kent County. This lawsuit roots from the claim that the GFIAA permitted the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams, leading to the tainting of nearby water resources.

The Sixth Circuit's approval comes amid an ongoing struggle for access to clean drinking water, as the locals contend with the persistent peril that PFAS - often referred to as 'forever chemicals' - poses to their water supplies. "Michigan residents deserve to have access to safe, clean drinking water," Nessel said, according to the Attorney General's announcement. "I am pleased the Sixth Circuit has affirmed that state court is the appropriate venue for this lawsuit, as it is for countless other PFAS cases handled by my Department." The Attorney General's office has been proactive, with EGLE issuing prior warnings and demands for action before legal steps were taken to hold the GFIAA accountable for the contamination.

The substance of the case rests on the significant, previous and known discharges of PFAS by the GFIAA. It is argued that this has led to the presence of these substances in residential wells and local waterways, affecting properties and ecological systems in areas such as Cascade Charter Township. Aside from seeking remedial actions, the lawsuit aims for the GFIAA to bear the financial weight of past and future cleanup efforts and for the loss of natural resources—a claim firmly anchored in the provisions of the NREPA and in violations of their NPDES Permit.

The central issue is the alleged liability of the GFIAA for the environmental impact of PFAS. As the enforcement of the Environmental Protection Act continues, the case may lead to a resolution that addresses the concerns of the affected community. The full extent of PFAS contamination associated with the airport has yet to be determined, making this lawsuit significant in assessing and addressing the spread of these chemicals.