Published on 1/4/2024

Group photo of the Marin, Barrett, and Murphy Law Firm including Attorney Matthew Marin, a professional and experienced lawyer, standing confidently, representing his dedication to legal representation in PFAS water contamination lawsuits in Alaska
Contact Us Today for a Free PFAS Lawsuit Evaluation

Published on 1/4/2024

In Alaska, the detection of PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) in drinking water is a significant concern, requiring immediate and strategic actions from water providers. These substances, known for their persistence in the environment and potential health risks, have been increasingly detected in various regions, raising alarms for public health and safety. For Alaskan water providers confronting the challenge of first-time PFAS detection, it is essential to adopt a comprehensive action plan. This plan should encompass immediate measures, legal considerations, long-term remediation strategies, and ongoing community engagement to effectively address the contamination, ensure compliance with regulatory standards, and safeguard the health of the communities they serve.


First-Time PFAS Detection: Action Plan for Alaskan Water Providers

Steps to Take Following PFAS Detection in Alaska

Immediate Response to PFAS Detection

  1. Confirm and Document the Findings: Upon first-time detection of PFAS in your water supply, promptly retest to confirm the results. Maintain detailed records of all test results, as this information will be vital for any future legal or regulatory action.
  2. Notify State Regulatory Agencies: Contact the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to report the PFAS findings. The DEC can offer guidance and resources, as well as help to determine if the levels detected exceed state action levels.
  3. Inform the Community: Transparency is key. Inform the community about the detection, the potential health risks associated with PFAS, and the steps being taken to address the issue. This notification should align with the Public Notification Rule requirements.

Engaging with Legal and Regulatory Processes

  1. Consult with Legal Experts: Seek legal counsel experienced in environmental law and specifically in PFAS contamination cases. An experienced law firm can provide guidance on your rights and responsibilities as a water provider and assist in navigating potential claims against 3M and DuPont.
  2. Explore Eligibility for Phase 2 Claims: With your legal team, assess your eligibility to become a Phase 2 claimant in the ongoing lawsuit against 3M and DuPont.
  3. Prepare for Potential Litigation: If eligible, work with your attorneys to prepare for litigation, including gathering necessary documentation and evidence of PFAS contamination and its impacts on your water system and the community.

Long-Term Strategies and Remediation Efforts

  1. Develop a Remediation Plan: Collaborate with environmental consultants to develop a plan to remediate PFAS contamination. This may involve installing treatment technologies, finding alternative water sources, or other measures to ensure safe drinking water.
  2. Seek Financial Assistance and Grants: Investigate funding opportunities to support remediation efforts. This includes federal grants, state funding, and potentially compensation through legal settlements with 3M and DuPont.
  3. Stay Informed and Engage with Policy Developments: Keep abreast of ongoing developments in PFAS research, regulation, and legislation, both at the state and federal levels. Participate in policy discussions to advocate for resources and support for impacted communities.
  4. Community Engagement and Ongoing Communication: Establish a channel for continuous communication with the community regarding the status of PFAS remediation efforts, changes in water quality, and health advisories. Engage with community members to address concerns and provide updates.

Addressing PFAS contamination is a complex challenge that requires a coordinated response encompassing legal, regulatory, technical, and community engagement aspects. For Alaskan water providers experiencing first-time PFAS detection, taking these action steps is critical to effectively manage the situation and protect public health.


Introduction to Phase 2 Claimants in Alaska

In the complex landscape of environmental litigation, particularly concerning water contamination, the terms “Phase 1” and “Phase 2” claimants have emerged as critical distinctions. These classifications are especially relevant in the context of the ongoing legal battle involving 3M and DuPont, two industrial giants implicated in widespread per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. In Alaska, these issues are not just legal abstractions but real concerns affecting the water quality and health of its communities.

What are Phase 2 Claimants?

Phase 2 claimants comprise a category of entities, primarily water providers, that have identified PFAS contamination in their water sources subsequent to the initial settlement agreements in litigation against 3M and DuPont. In contrast to Phase 1 claimants, who were involved in the initial lawsuit and settlement, Phase 2 claimants have emerged by presenting evidence of contamination during subsequent monitoring phases, particularly in accordance with the forthcoming regulations outlined in the EPA’s proposed drinking water regulation scheduled for implementation in 2024.

PFAS Contamination in Alaska

Alaska’s vast landscapes and unique environmental conditions present a particular challenge in managing PFAS contamination. The state’s reliance on groundwater and surface water resources makes it vulnerable to PFAS, which are known for their persistence in the environment and potential health risks. These synthetic chemicals, used in various industrial applications and consumer products, have been linked to adverse health outcomes, including cancer, thyroid disease, and developmental issues in children.

The detection of PFAS in Alaska’s water systems is not only an environmental concern but also a significant public health issue. With the forthcoming implementation of the EPA’s proposed drinking water regulation in 2024, more Alaskan water providers are proactively conducting testing for PFAS. This heightened testing has resulted in the discovery of additional instances of contamination. Consequently, the scope of impacted parties has broadened, including a growing number of Alaskan water systems that may now qualify as potential Phase 2 claimants in the legal proceedings against 3M and DuPont.

As Phase 2 claimants, these Alaskan water providers face the challenge of navigating the complexities of a large-scale environmental lawsuit. They must establish the extent of PFAS contamination, its impact on their communities, and pursue appropriate legal recourse to seek compensation and remediation. This situation underscores the importance of understanding the specific context of PFAS contamination in Alaska and the critical role of experienced legal counsel in guiding these claimants through the settlement process with 3M and DuPont.


Alaska’s Water Providers: Potential Phase 2 Claimants

List of Potential Phase 2 Alaskan Water Providers

Alaska, characterized by its distinctive geographical and environmental attributes, is home to a multitude of water providers that serve its diverse communities. The forthcoming implementation of the EPA’s proposed drinking water regulation in 2024 has heightened scrutiny on the presence of PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) in water sources. As a result, potential Phase 2 claimants have emerged within the context of the ongoing 3M and DuPont settlements related to PFAS contamination. Presented below is an extensive list of Alaskan water providers who may be eligible for Phase 2 consideration based on their compliance with the forthcoming EPA regulations and new PFAS detections:

  1. Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility (AWWU): Serving Alaska’s largest city, AWWU is a major provider that has the potential to be significantly impacted by PFAS findings.
  2. Fairbanks Water and Sewer: Catering to the interior region of Alaska, this utility is another key player in the state’s water provision landscape.
  3. Juneau Water Utility: As the capital city’s primary water provider, it plays a crucial role in ensuring safe drinking water for its residents.
  4. Kenai Peninsula Borough Utilities: This utility serves a large area with diverse water sources, making it a potential candidate for PFAS impact assessments.
  5. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Water: Covering one of the fastest-growing regions in Alaska, this utility’s inclusion in UCMR 5 results is critical.
  6. Kodiak Public Utilities: Serving the Kodiak Island area, this utility’s water sources are subject to testing under UCMR 5.
  7. Sitka Public Utilities Department: This utility provides water to the residents of Sitka, with potential implications from PFAS findings.
  8. Ketchikan Public Utilities: As a provider in a major fishing hub, its water sources are crucial for both residents and the local economy.
  9. Bethel Water Utility: Serving the largest community in western Alaska, this utility’s water sources are of particular interest in PFAS testing.
  10. Nome Joint Utility System: Providing essential services in a remote area, this utility’s inclusion in Phase 2 claimants list is important for local public health.
  11. Wasilla Water: Serving a key area in the Mat-Su Valley, this utility is also part of the potential claimants based on UCMR 5 results.
  12. North Slope Borough Utilities: In a region characterized by extreme conditions, this utility’s water sources are uniquely vulnerable to contamination.
  13. Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA): Although primarily focused on power, SEAPA’s role in water provision in Southeast Alaska puts it on the list of potential claimants.
  14. Valdez Water Utility: As a key provider in the Prince William Sound region, this utility’s testing results are crucial for environmental and public health.
  15. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC): Providing services to many rural communities, ANTHC’s involvement in water provision makes it a potential claimant.

The outcomes of the EPA’s proposed drinking water regulation in 2024 and the subsequent actions taken will carry substantial significance for these providers. In the event of identifying PFAS in their water sources, these utilities may be required to implement comprehensive measures for remediation and adherence to the new regulatory standards, underscoring the critical nature of their involvement as Phase 2 claimants in the 3M and DuPont settlements.


EPA’s Proposed Drinking Water Regulation and Its Impact on Alaskan Water Providers

Proposed Drinking Water Regulations in Alaska: Implications and Requirements

The proposed drinking water regulations in Alaska mark a significant step forward in the state’s efforts to ensure the safety and quality of its drinking water supply. These regulations, currently under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, introduce new challenges and responsibilities for Alaskan water providers, with a primary focus on addressing the presence of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and lithium in drinking water sources.

What are the Proposed Drinking Water Regulations?

The proposed drinking water regulations are part of the EPA’s ongoing commitment to safeguarding public health by regulating contaminants in drinking water. These regulations mandate that water systems throughout Alaska monitor specific contaminants that are not yet regulated under federal drinking water standards. The goal is to gather data on the presence of these contaminants in drinking water supplies, enabling informed decision-making by regulatory bodies regarding potential future regulations.

The Focus on PFAS and Lithium

The proposed regulations place particular emphasis on addressing 29 PFAS compounds and lithium. These substances have been identified due to their potential health risks and widespread use in various industrial and consumer products. PFAS, in particular, have been linked to several adverse health effects, including cancer, liver damage, and disruptions to the immune system.

Implications for Alaskan Water Providers

Compliance with the proposed drinking water regulations requires Alaskan water providers to undertake the following:

  1. Sample Collection: Water providers must collect samples from their water sources following EPA guidelines and timelines. This includes sampling from various sources, such as surface water, groundwater under the direct influence of surface water, and mixed sources.
  2. Testing and Reporting: EPA-approved laboratories must be engaged to perform the required tests, and the findings must be reported to the EPA. The results are essential for assessing the prevalence of PFAS and lithium in Alaska’s water systems.
  3. Public Disclosure: Under these regulations, water providers are obligated to disclose the results of their testing to the public. This transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust and awareness regarding water quality.
  4. Potential Actions: In the event that concerning levels of PFAS or lithium are detected, water providers may need to explore treatment options, source water changes, or other mitigation strategies to ensure the safety of their water supply.

Connection to PFAS Testing

The inclusion of PFAS testing in these proposed regulations is of particular relevance to Alaskan water providers due to the state’s unique environmental conditions and the presence of military installations that have historically used PFAS-containing firefighting foams. The detection of PFAS in drinking water sources could have significant health and environmental implications, necessitating prompt and effective action.

Proposed Regulations Timeline

The timeline for implementing these proposed regulations is as follows:

    1. Preparations in 2022: Water systems and laboratories prepare for the upcoming sampling requirements.
    2. Sample Collection from 2023 – 2025: Water systems across Alaska will collect and test samples for PFAS and lithium.
    3. Completion of Data Reporting in 2026: Final data submission to the EPA, which will be used to inform future regulatory decisions.

In summary, the proposed drinking water regulations represent a critical effort in ensuring the safety and quality of drinking water in Alaska. By monitoring unregulated contaminants like PFAS and lithium, Alaskan water providers can take proactive steps to address potential public health risks, thereby safeguarding their communities. Compliance with these regulations is not only a regulatory requirement but also a commitment to public health and environmental stewardship.


Navigating Costs of Compliance with PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

Understanding the Financial Implications of PFAS Regulation

The detection of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Alaska’s water systems will necessitate compliance with the PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. This scenario introduces significant financial implications for water providers. Effective management of PFAS, a group of man-made chemicals notorious for their persistence in the environment and potential health risks, is not just a technical challenge but also a fiscal one.

Estimating Treatment and Compliance Costs

The challenge of managing PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) in Alaska’s water systems requires a detailed understanding of the various costs involved in treatment and compliance. This understanding is essential for effective financial planning and implementation of remediation strategies.

Key Cost Factors

Several primary factors influence the overall costs of PFAS treatment and compliance:

  1. Size of the Water System: The scale of the water system directly impacts the costs. Larger systems may face higher costs due to the volume of water that needs treatment, while smaller systems may encounter higher per-unit costs due to lack of economies of scale.
  2. Level of PFAS Contamination: The concentration of PFAS in the water supply dictates the intensity and type of treatment required, thereby affecting the cost. Higher contamination levels typically necessitate more robust treatment solutions.
  3. Local Environmental Conditions: Alaska’s diverse environmental landscape means that local conditions – such as water source type (groundwater vs. surface water), existing infrastructure, and geographical challenges – significantly influence treatment options and costs.
  4. Regulatory Compliance Requirements: Compliance with state and federal regulations may necessitate additional monitoring, reporting, and administrative tasks, contributing to the overall cost.
  5. Long-Term Maintenance and Operation: The ongoing costs for maintaining and operating PFAS treatment systems, including periodic replacement of treatment media and disposal of contaminants, are crucial considerations.

Treatment Technologies and Their Costs

Several technologies are available for PFAS removal, each with varying effectiveness and cost implications:

  1. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC):
    • Description: GAC is widely used for its effectiveness in adsorbing PFAS compounds from water.
    • Cost Factors: Costs depend on the size of the system, the amount of media required, and the frequency of media replacement. Capital costs can range significantly, with additional operational and maintenance expenses.
  2. Ion Exchange (IX):
    • Description: IX systems use resins to remove PFAS from water, offering a higher capacity for PFAS adsorption compared to GAC.
    • Cost Factors: While potentially more effective than GAC, IX systems can be more expensive due to the cost of resin media and the need for regular regeneration or replacement.
  3. Reverse Osmosis (RO)/Nanofiltration (NF):
    • Description: RO and NF are membrane-based processes known for their high effectiveness in removing a wide range of contaminants, including PFAS.
    • Cost Factors: These technologies typically involve higher initial capital costs and energy requirements. The complexity of operation and maintenance also contributes to ongoing costs.

Financial Assistance and Funding Opportunities

For Alaskan water providers facing the challenges of PFAS contamination, navigating the financial aspects is as crucial as the technical solutions. Understanding the avenues for financial assistance and exploring legal options for compensation can significantly alleviate the financial burden of compliance and remediation.

Federal and State Grants

  1. EPA Grants and Funding: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers various grants and funding opportunities aimed at improving drinking water quality and infrastructure, including those specifically for addressing contaminants like PFAS. These can include:
    • State Revolving Funds (SRFs): Both the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund provide funding for water infrastructure projects, including treatment systems for contaminants.
    • Specific PFAS Grants: Periodically, the EPA announces grants focused on researching, monitoring, and addressing PFAS contamination.
  2. State of Alaska Funding Programs: The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) may offer state-specific grants and funding opportunities tailored to address environmental concerns, including water quality and contamination issues.
  3. Other Federal Programs: Departments like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also provide funding for rural water infrastructure, which can be applicable for PFAS mitigation efforts in qualifying areas of Alaska.

Legal Recourse and Settlements

  1. Pursuing Claims Against PFAS Manufacturers: Water providers in Alaska impacted by PFAS contamination may have legal grounds to pursue claims for financial compensation against manufacturers of PFAS, such as 3M and DuPont. These claims can potentially recover costs related to PFAS treatment, monitoring, and other related expenses.
  2. Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements: Joining class action lawsuits can be a viable option for water providers. These lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers have led to significant settlements in other states, providing a precedent for potential compensation.
  3. Working with Legal Experts: It’s advisable to consult with law firms specializing in environmental law and specifically in cases related to PFAS contamination. They can offer guidance on the viability of a claim, the process of joining ongoing lawsuits, or initiating new legal actions.
  4. Understanding the Legal Process: The legal process can be complex and lengthy. Water providers should be prepared for the various stages of litigation, including evidence gathering, negotiations, and potentially, court proceedings.

Alaska’s Regulatory Framework for PFAS Contamination

Understanding DEC’s Cleanup Levels and EPA’s Health Advisories

Alaska faces unique challenges in managing and mitigating the risks associated with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) contamination. The state’s approach is framed by guidelines and cleanup levels set by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Understanding these regulatory standards is crucial for water providers and communities grappling with PFAS contamination.

DEC’s Cleanup Levels for PFAS

In November 2016, the DEC established cleanup levels for two specific PFAS compounds – perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – in groundwater. These levels are integral to the state’s environmental cleanup framework and are stipulated in 18 AAC 75 (Article 3).

  1. Specifics of the Cleanup Levels: The cleanup levels dictate the maximum allowable concentrations of PFOS and PFOA in groundwater, guiding remediation efforts at contaminated sites across Alaska.
  2. Implications for Water Providers: For Alaskan water providers, these cleanup levels serve as benchmarks to assess the extent of PFAS contamination and to strategize appropriate remediation actions.

EPA’s Health Advisories

The EPA plays a critical role in guiding public health responses to PFAS contamination through its health advisories.

  1. Provisional Health Advisory (PHA): Initially established in 2009, the PHA set preliminary guidelines on acceptable PFOS and PFOA levels in drinking water.
  2. Lifetime Health Advisory (LHA): In May 2016, the EPA issued a new LHA of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for the combined concentration of PFOS and PFOA. This advisory reflects the latest scientific understanding of PFAS health impacts.
  3. Recent Updates and Commitments: In June 2022, the EPA announced new drinking water health advisories for PFAS chemicals, backed by $1 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding to strengthen health protections. This aligns with the EPA’s PFAS action plan, including a commitment to propose a national drinking water regulatory determination for PFOS and PFOA.

Alaska DEC’s Alignment with EPA

The DEC has aligned its actions with the EPA’s guidelines:

  1. Combined PFAS Action Level: In August 2018, DEC grouped five similar PFAS compounds into a combined action level, paralleling the EPA’s LHA of 70 ppt.
  2. Revised Drinking Water Action Level: Following the EPA’s action plan, the DEC revised its drinking water action level to match the EPA LHA level for PFOS and PFOA, whether individually or combined.
  3. Comprehensive Evaluation by DOT&PF: The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) is conducting extensive evaluations of PFAS contamination at state-owned properties, including airports and former Department of Defense sites. This includes testing, public engagement, and remediation planning.
  4. FAA Reauthorization Act and AFFF Inventory: In response to federal regulations, DOT&PF is inventorying and planning to dispose of older Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) stocks, which are known sources of PFAS.

Key Takeaways for Alaskan Water Providers

  • Compliance with Regulatory Standards: Understanding and complying with DEC’s cleanup levels and the EPA’s health advisories is essential for managing PFAS risks.
  • Proactive Measures: Regular testing, public communication, and preparedness to implement remediation strategies are vital.
  • Staying Informed: Keeping abreast of regulatory changes and scientific advancements in PFAS research will help in making informed decisions.

For Alaskan water providers, navigating the regulatory landscape of PFAS contamination requires vigilance and a commitment to public health. By adhering to these guidelines, they play a critical role in safeguarding Alaska’s water resources and public health.


DOT&PF’s Response to PFAS Contamination in Alaska

Comprehensive Evaluation and Action Steps by DOT&PF

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has taken a proactive stance in addressing the challenges posed by PFAS contamination, particularly at state-owned properties and sites under its jurisdiction. This comprehensive approach reflects the department’s commitment to public health and environmental stewardship.

Key Elements of DOT&PF’s PFAS Action Plan

  1. Statewide Evaluation: DOT&PF is conducting thorough evaluations of PFAS contamination at all past and present Part 139 airports and known Department of Defense (DoD) sites. This initiative extends to identifying and sampling potentially impacted communities.
  2. Collaboration with Environmental Consultants: Partnering with Shannon & Wilson, Inc., an independent environmental consulting firm, DOT&PF ensures expert assessment and response planning. This includes field sampling of groundwater, surface water, drinking water, and soils.
  3. Immediate Response Measures: Upon establishing the presence of PFAS, DOT&PF promptly provides alternate drinking water sources to impacted properties, emphasizing the urgency of safeguarding public health.
  4. Community Engagement and Support: Through active public and stakeholder engagement, DOT&PF maintains transparency and provides necessary support to affected communities.
  5. Engineering Solutions and Remediation Plans: The department focuses on designing and implementing long-term remediation strategies, including exploring permanent water supply alternatives.
  6. Interdepartmental Coordination: DOT&PF has established a dedicated position to manage PFAS-related response efforts, ensuring effective coordination across various departments and with external partners.

Ongoing Efforts and Achievements

To date, DOT&PF’s response has been implemented in multiple communities, with immediate provision of alternative drinking water sources and ongoing environmental assessments. The department’s proactive measures exemplify a model for responsible environmental management and community welfare.


Changes in Firefighting Foam Requirements: Impact on Alaskan Airports

FAA’s New Directives and Alaskan Airport Compliance

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act and subsequent updates have significant implications for firefighting practices, particularly concerning the use of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) at Alaskan airports.

FAA Reauthorization Act and AFFF Transition

  1. CertAlert 21-05 and AFFF Guidelines: In October 2021, the FAA issued CertAlert 21-05, revising the military specification for firefighting foam used in airports. This update reflects an ongoing effort to minimize environmental impacts associated with AFFF.
  2. Alaska’s Compliance Efforts: Alaskan airports, in line with FAA directives, are transitioning to newer, more environmentally friendly firefighting foams. This shift is part of a broader strategy to reduce PFAS pollution, aligning with federal standards and environmental best practices.
  3. Inventory and Disposal of Pre-2015 AFFF: DOT&PF is actively inventorying AFFF stocks, particularly those manufactured before 2015, and is implementing disposal plans for older, PFAS-containing foams.
  4. Exploring Alternatives and Training Requirements: The department is also evaluating alternative firefighting methods and training mechanisms to meet FAA mandates while reducing environmental impacts.

Broader Implications and Future Outlook

  • Commitment to Environmental Safety: The shift in firefighting foam requirements signifies a crucial step towards minimizing PFAS contamination, particularly around airports.
  • Enhanced Airport Safety and Compliance: Alaskan airports are adapting to these changes, ensuring safety standards are met while embracing more sustainable practices.
  • Anticipated Developments: As the FAA continues to review and potentially approve fluorine-free firefighting alternatives, Alaska’s airports remain at the forefront of adapting to these evolving standards.

The FAA Reauthorization Act and DOT&PF’s comprehensive response underscore Alaska’s dedication to environmental protection and public health, particularly in managing PFAS-related challenges at airports and other transportation facilities.


Joining the Fight Against PFAS Contamination in Alaska

Next Steps for Alaskan Water Providers

As Alaskan water providers grapple with the challenges of PFAS contamination, the path forward requires a concerted and informed approach. The detection of PFAS in water supplies is not just an environmental issue but a community health concern that demands immediate and effective action.

Empowerment through Action and Advocacy

  1. Proactive Measures: Upon detecting PFAS in your water supply, it is crucial to take immediate steps to mitigate the impact on your community. This includes providing alternative water sources if necessary and initiating a thorough investigation of the contamination source.
  2. Engaging with Regulatory Bodies: Stay abreast of the latest regulations and guidelines from both the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Compliance with these regulations is not only a legal obligation but a commitment to public health.
  3. Community Communication: Transparency with your community is key. Keep your consumers informed about PFAS levels, potential health risks, and the measures you are taking to ensure safe drinking water.

Legal Support: A Crucial Asset

  1. Seeking Experienced Counsel: Navigating the complexities of environmental law, especially in relation to PFAS contamination, calls for specialized legal expertise. Partnering with a law firm experienced in water contamination cases can provide the guidance and support needed to manage this situation effectively.
  2. Understanding Legal Options: Knowledgeable legal counsel can help you understand your rights and responsibilities as a water provider, explore potential claims against PFAS manufacturers, and guide you through the process of joining class action lawsuits or seeking compensation for remediation costs.
  3. Advocacy and Representation: An experienced legal team can advocate on your behalf, ensuring that your interests are represented in negotiations, settlements, and any necessary legal proceedings.

Staying Informed and Prepared

  1. Continuous Learning: The science and regulations surrounding PFAS are continually evolving. Staying informed about the latest research, health advisories, and legal developments is crucial for making informed decisions.
  2. Joining the Collective Effort: Collaborate with other water providers, environmental groups, and governmental agencies to share knowledge, resources, and strategies for dealing with PFAS contamination.

Get Legal Help Now from the Marin, Barrett, and Murphy Law Firm

As an Alaskan water provider, your role in safeguarding the health and well-being of your community is more critical than ever. If you have detected PFAS in your water supply:

  • Contact a Focused Legal Team: Reach out to Marin, Barrett, and Murphy Law Firm for a consultation to understand your legal options and next steps.
  • Stay Informed: Regularly visit Alaska DEC and EPA websites for updates on PFAS regulations and health advisories.
  • Engage with Your Community: Keep an open line of communication with your consumers, providing them with transparent and up-to-date information on PFAS and its impact on water quality.

Together, we can confront the challenges posed by PFAS and work towards a future where the water in Alaska is safe for all.

Disclaimer

Please note that the information provided on this page is intended solely for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Contacting the law firm through this website, by email, or by any other means does not create an attorney-client relationship. As such, you should not use this website or the information it contains to make any legal decisions. Before making any decision or taking any action that might affect your legal rights or obligations, consult directly with a qualified attorney at the law firm for personalized legal advice. An attorney-client relationship can only be established by mutual agreement and formal engagement with the firm.