City of New Brighton Files Motion to Enforce Terms of 1988 Settlement Agreement with the Army over the Army's Contamination of New Brighton's Water Supply

NEW BRIGHTON, Minn., May 21, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the City of New Brighton filed a motion asking the federal court to order the United States Army to honor its 1988 litigation settlement agreement, entered into after the U.S. Army admitted that it had contaminated New Brighton's water supply.

"Twenty-six years ago, the U.S. Army promised the residents of New Brighton that it would unconditionally pay all costs for the City to own and operate a state-of-the-art water treatment facility to provide our residents with safe and clean drinking water," explained Dean Lotter, New Brighton's City Manager.  "This legal action seeks to hold the U.S. Army to that promise to protect the City's taxpayers and residents."

In 1981, the Minnesota Department of Health discovered that New Brighton's municipal wells were contaminated with harmful chemicals from the U.S. Army's Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP).  For years, the U.S. Army denied responsibility for the contamination. In 1984, the City sued the U.S. Army to recover the money it needed for a replacement water supply from an uncontaminated aquifer.  In response, the U.S. Army continued to deny responsibility for the contamination.

In 1988, the U.S. Army finally admitted that it contaminated the City's water supply and agreed to settle the City's lawsuit.  In the settlement, it agreed that:

• The U.S. Army would fully fund a City-owned treatment facility needed to ensure safe and clean drinking water;
• Minnesota law, not the federal bureaucracy in the Pentagon, will govern the City's operation of the water treatment system.

The U.S. Army has recognized that its settlement with the City is unique because it requires ongoing and long-term payments to the City for the treatment needed to keep the water safe and clean. However, recently the U.S. Army has told New Brighton that it will not comply with the settlement agreement as written and has refused to make further payments to New Brighton until the City agrees to change the terms of the settlement agreement.  Some of the U.S. Army's demands would: 

• Remove the City's autonomy to operate its water system without federal interference;
• Preclude advance payment of the City's expenses, and prohibit the City from continuing to maintain an operating reserve;
• Change the regulatory framework for municipal water treatment from state law to federal law and regulations;
• Limit the expenses that the U.S. Army must pay for; and
• Enable the U.S. Army to cease making settlement payments to treat the water it contaminated.

"For the first time since this settlement was reached 26 years ago, the U.S. Army is trying to impose conditions on the agreement that would remove local control over our water treatment system and threaten our ability to maintain an adequate operating reserve," Lotter said. "New Brighton never would have settled the original lawsuit with the U.S. Army if the terms of the agreement could be changed by the U.S. Army at will. Therefore, New Brighton is asking the federal court to order the U.S. Army to live up to its promise to unconditionally fund safe and clean water."

On average, New Brighton's water treatment facility pumps and treats over 1 billion gallons of water per year. It is equipped with state-of-the-art technology used to remove U.S. Army contaminants from the water. Between the years of 1990 and 2013, the facility removed over 11 tons of volatile organic compounds from the water supply.  Excess water produced that is not used by New Brighton is delivered to Fridley.

"New Brighton's motion to enforce its settlement with the U.S. Army will not affect the operations of the water treatment system in any way," said Lotter. "New Brighton has safe and clean water and that isn't going to change. The U.S. Army needs to step up and keep its promise to New Brighton's residents to fund the treatment of the groundwater that it contaminated for many years."    

For more information on the City of New Brighton's court action, please visit: www.ci.newbrighton.mn.us.   

SOURCE City of New Brighton