Loading
Agriculture
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Environmental Engineering, Hydrology, Water Contamination, Regulatory Compliance, Pesticides
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Seventh Circuit
The atrazine drinking water litigation against Syngenta involved claims by public water systems seeking recovery for costs allegedly tied to atrazine detections in drinking water supplies. The dispute is most closely associated with the federal class action resolved in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, commonly referred to as City of Greenville, Illinois, et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., et al.
The defendants included Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, sued under its former name Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Syngenta AG. The plaintiffs were municipal and community water systems that alleged atrazine entered source waters used for public drinking water.
The water systems claimed they incurred expenses for testing, monitoring, treatment planning, filtration, and drinking-water compliance. The complaint did not seek damages for individual personal injuries. The claims focused on public utility operations, alleged property interference, and cost recovery under state-law theories.
Atrazine litigation involving public drinking water supplies began in Illinois state court in 2004. Related actions filed by Holiday Shores Sanitary District and other plaintiffs alleged that atrazine entered source waters used by public water providers and caused financial and operational costs.
These Illinois actions came before the later federal class action. The allegations concerned source-water impacts, monitoring expenses, filtration decisions, public utility costs, and alleged interference with water-system property interests. The later federal settlement resolved the related Illinois state-court atrazine actions identified in the settlement agreement.
In 2010, named community water systems from several Midwestern states pursued a federal class action in the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint asserted state-law claims, including trespass, public nuisance, strict liability, and negligence.
The plaintiffs sought recovery for expenses allegedly connected to atrazine detections in drinking water supplies. The case proceeded as a cost-recovery action brought by regulated water systems. It was not an individual injury lawsuit or a federal enforcement action. The later settlement class covered qualifying community water systems across the United States.
During discovery, the parties exchanged records and technical materials concerning atrazine detections, water-system costs, filtration, causation, and claimed damages. The record also addressed how public drinking water systems operate and how alleged atrazine detections related to utility expenses.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level for atrazine served as regulatory context. EPA’s drinking water standard for atrazine is 0.003 mg/L, or 3 parts per billion. Drinking water obligations, monitoring practices, treatment options, and compliance-related expenses were part of the cost and operations record.
On May 30, 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement. The court held a fairness hearing on October 22, 2012, and entered final approval on October 23, 2012.
In the final approval order, the court described the settlement class as including at least 1,930 community water systems nationwide that had detected atrazine in their drinking water supplies.
Court:
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Case Name:
City of Greenville, Illinois, et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Syngenta AG
Environmental Contamination
Groundwater Contamination
Water Quality
Water Treatment
Environmental Toxicology
Ecotoxicology
Chemical Analysis
Groundwater
The atrazine drinking water litigation against Syngenta involved claims by public water systems seeking recovery for costs allegedly tied to atrazine detections in drinking water supplies. The dispute is most closely associated with the federal class action resolved in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, commonly referred to as City of Greenville, Illinois, et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., et al.
The defendants included Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, sued under its former name Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Syngenta AG. The plaintiffs were municipal and community water systems that alleged atrazine entered source waters used for public drinking water.
The water systems claimed they incurred expenses for testing, monitoring, treatment planning, filtration, and drinking-water compliance. The complaint did not seek damages for individual personal injuries. The claims focused on public utility operations, alleged property interference, and cost recovery under state-law theories.
Atrazine litigation involving public drinking water supplies began in Illinois state court in 2004. Related actions filed by Holiday Shores Sanitary District and other plaintiffs alleged that atrazine entered source waters used by public water providers and caused financial and operational costs.
These Illinois actions came before the later federal class action. The allegations concerned source-water impacts, monitoring expenses, filtration decisions, public utility costs, and alleged interference with water-system property interests. The later federal settlement resolved the related Illinois state-court atrazine actions identified in the settlement agreement.
In 2010, named community water systems from several Midwestern states pursued a federal class action in the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint asserted state-law claims, including trespass, public nuisance, strict liability, and negligence.
The plaintiffs sought recovery for expenses allegedly connected to atrazine detections in drinking water supplies. The case proceeded as a cost-recovery action brought by regulated water systems. It was not an individual injury lawsuit or a federal enforcement action. The later settlement class covered qualifying community water systems across the United States.
During discovery, the parties exchanged records and technical materials concerning atrazine detections, water-system costs, filtration, causation, and claimed damages. The record also addressed how public drinking water systems operate and how alleged atrazine detections related to utility expenses.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level for atrazine served as regulatory context. EPA’s drinking water standard for atrazine is 0.003 mg/L, or 3 parts per billion. Drinking water obligations, monitoring practices, treatment options, and compliance-related expenses were part of the cost and operations record.
On May 30, 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement. The court held a fairness hearing on October 22, 2012, and entered final approval on October 23, 2012.
In the final approval order, the court described the settlement class as including at least 1,930 community water systems nationwide that had detected atrazine in their drinking water supplies.
The court-approved settlement established a $105 million common fund for qualifying community water systems. The settlement class included every community water system in the United States with a qualifying test result showing a measurable concentration of atrazine at or above the applicable analytical method’s limit of quantitation.
To qualify, the test result had to come from analytical testing performed before August 28, 2012, using a state- or federal-agency-approved method. This definition tied class eligibility to measurable atrazine detections in public drinking water supplies.
The allocation structure provided each eligible claimant with an initial $5,000 payment. That amount was tied to baseline monitoring costs and described as approximately equal to the cost of 20 water tests. After court-approved fees, costs, and administration expenses, the remaining settlement funds were distributed using criteria that included atrazine concentration levels, frequency of detections, timing of detections, and system size.
The settlement resolved the federal class action and the related Illinois state-court atrazine actions identified in the settlement agreement. It did not include an admission of liability by Syngenta and did not require a court finding that Syngenta was liable for the alleged water-system costs.
Environmental Chemists and Toxicology Expert Witness
Environmental chemists and toxicologists may analyze atrazine’s chemical properties, degradation, persistence, and behavior in surface water and groundwater. Their work can address contaminant detection, laboratory testing methods, analytical reporting limits, and the scientific basis for claimed utility costs.
Hydrology and Source-Water Expert Witness
Hydrologists may evaluate how atrazine moves through watersheds, aquifers, rivers, reservoirs, and other drinking water sources. Their analysis can address transport pathways from agricultural areas to municipal intake points, seasonal runoff patterns, and detection trends across public water systems.
Water Treatment and Environmental Engineering Expert Witness
Water treatment and environmental engineering experts may evaluate how regulated utilities respond to contaminants in drinking water systems. Their analysis can address filtration options, treatment adjustments, granular activated carbon use, infrastructure needs, operating practices, and claimed compliance-related costs.
Drinking Water Regulatory Compliance Expert Witness
Drinking water compliance experts may address federal and state monitoring rules, reporting duties, contaminant thresholds, and utility recordkeeping practices. Their opinions can explain how regulatory standards and monitoring obligations affect water-system testing, treatment planning, and operational expenses.
Economic and Financial Expert Witness
Economic and financial experts may evaluate claimed costs in environmental cost-recovery litigation. Their work can include reviewing monitoring expenses, treatment costs, system-size factors, historical utility records, and settlement allocation methods.
The Claims Were Based on State-Law Theories
The public water systems asserted claims under common-law theories such as trespass, nuisance, strict liability, and negligence. The case was not brought as a federal enforcement action.
The EPA Atrazine Standard Provided Regulatory Context
The EPA maximum contaminant level for atrazine formed part of the drinking water compliance setting. The class claims used drinking-water obligations and monitoring practices as part of the cost record, but the plaintiffs did not rely on those regulatory standards as stand-alone federal causes of action.
Class Eligibility Depended on Qualifying Test Results
The settlement class covered community water systems with qualifying atrazine test results. Eligibility depended on a measurable concentration of atrazine at or above the applicable analytical method’s limit of quantitation. The qualifying test had to be performed before August 28, 2012, using a state- or federal-agency-approved analytical method.
The Payment Formula Used Water-System Data
The settlement allocation used criteria tied to detection levels, detection frequency, timing, and system size. These factors allowed the fund to account for differences among public water systems, including different water sources, service populations, and detection histories. The distribution occurred after court-approved fees, costs, and administration expenses.
The Litigation Ended Through Federal Settlement Approval
The case ended through preliminary approval, a fairness hearing, and final approval in federal court. The settlement resolved the nationwide class claims and the related Illinois state-court atrazine actions covered by the settlement agreement. The approval did not include an admission of liability by Syngenta.
The atrazine drinking water litigation against Syngenta resolved claims brought by community water systems that alleged costs from atrazine detections in public drinking water supplies. The claims proceeded under state-law tort and property theories in federal court.
The approved settlement created a $105 million common fund and used a court-approved allocation formula for qualifying water systems. Payments were based on measurable criteria, including atrazine detections, detection frequency, timing of detections, and system size. The settlement did not include an admission of liability by Syngenta.
Which atrazine detections and water-system costs were involved in the Syngenta drinking water settlement?
The settlement involved community water systems with qualifying test results showing measurable atrazine concentrations in drinking water supplies. Claimed costs included testing, monitoring, treatment, filtration, and compliance-related expenses tied to those detections.
Did the Syngenta atrazine settlement involve personal injury claims?
No. The public water system claims focused on alleged economic and property-based impacts. The case did not seek personal-injury damages for individual consumers.
How much was the Syngenta atrazine drinking water settlement?
The court-approved settlement established a $105 million common fund. The fund was used to pay qualifying community water systems that met the settlement’s atrazine detection criteria.
Which court approved the atrazine drinking water settlement?
The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The court granted final approval on October 23, 2012.
How were payments distributed to qualifying water systems?
Eligible claimants first received a $5,000 payment tied to baseline monitoring costs. After court-approved fees, costs, and administration expenses, remaining funds were allocated based on atrazine concentration levels, detection frequency, timing of detections, and system size.
The court-approved settlement established a $105 million common fund for qualifying community water systems. The settlement class included every community water system in the United States with a qualifying test result showing a measurable concentration of atrazine at or above the applicable analytical method’s limit of quantitation.
To qualify, the test result had to come from analytical testing performed before August 28, 2012, using a state- or federal-agency-approved method. This definition tied class eligibility to measurable atrazine detections in public drinking water supplies.
The allocation structure provided each eligible claimant with an initial $5,000 payment. That amount was tied to baseline monitoring costs and described as approximately equal to the cost of 20 water tests. After court-approved fees, costs, and administration expenses, the remaining settlement funds were distributed using criteria that included atrazine concentration levels, frequency of detections, timing of detections, and system size.
The settlement resolved the federal class action and the related Illinois state-court atrazine actions identified in the settlement agreement. It did not include an admission of liability by Syngenta and did not require a court finding that Syngenta was liable for the alleged water-system costs.
Environmental Chemists and Toxicology Expert Witness
Environmental chemists and toxicologists may analyze atrazine’s chemical properties, degradation, persistence, and behavior in surface water and groundwater. Their work can address contaminant detection, laboratory testing methods, analytical reporting limits, and the scientific basis for claimed utility costs.
Hydrology and Source-Water Expert Witness
Hydrologists may evaluate how atrazine moves through watersheds, aquifers, rivers, reservoirs, and other drinking water sources. Their analysis can address transport pathways from agricultural areas to municipal intake points, seasonal runoff patterns, and detection trends across public water systems.
Water Treatment and Environmental Engineering Expert Witness
Water treatment and environmental engineering experts may evaluate how regulated utilities respond to contaminants in drinking water systems. Their analysis can address filtration options, treatment adjustments, granular activated carbon use, infrastructure needs, operating practices, and claimed compliance-related costs.
Drinking Water Regulatory Compliance Expert Witness
Drinking water compliance experts may address federal and state monitoring rules, reporting duties, contaminant thresholds, and utility recordkeeping practices. Their opinions can explain how regulatory standards and monitoring obligations affect water-system testing, treatment planning, and operational expenses.
Economic and Financial Expert Witness
Economic and financial experts may evaluate claimed costs in environmental cost-recovery litigation. Their work can include reviewing monitoring expenses, treatment costs, system-size factors, historical utility records, and settlement allocation methods.
The Claims Were Based on State-Law Theories
The public water systems asserted claims under common-law theories such as trespass, nuisance, strict liability, and negligence. The case was not brought as a federal enforcement action.
The EPA Atrazine Standard Provided Regulatory Context
The EPA maximum contaminant level for atrazine formed part of the drinking water compliance setting. The class claims used drinking-water obligations and monitoring practices as part of the cost record, but the plaintiffs did not rely on those regulatory standards as stand-alone federal causes of action.
Class Eligibility Depended on Qualifying Test Results
The settlement class covered community water systems with qualifying atrazine test results. Eligibility depended on a measurable concentration of atrazine at or above the applicable analytical method’s limit of quantitation. The qualifying test had to be performed before August 28, 2012, using a state- or federal-agency-approved analytical method.
The Payment Formula Used Water-System Data
The settlement allocation used criteria tied to detection levels, detection frequency, timing, and system size. These factors allowed the fund to account for differences among public water systems, including different water sources, service populations, and detection histories. The distribution occurred after court-approved fees, costs, and administration expenses.
The Litigation Ended Through Federal Settlement Approval
The case ended through preliminary approval, a fairness hearing, and final approval in federal court. The settlement resolved the nationwide class claims and the related Illinois state-court atrazine actions covered by the settlement agreement. The approval did not include an admission of liability by Syngenta.
The atrazine drinking water litigation against Syngenta resolved claims brought by community water systems that alleged costs from atrazine detections in public drinking water supplies. The claims proceeded under state-law tort and property theories in federal court.
The approved settlement created a $105 million common fund and used a court-approved allocation formula for qualifying water systems. Payments were based on measurable criteria, including atrazine detections, detection frequency, timing of detections, and system size. The settlement did not include an admission of liability by Syngenta.
Which atrazine detections and water-system costs were involved in the Syngenta drinking water settlement?
The settlement involved community water systems with qualifying test results showing measurable atrazine concentrations in drinking water supplies. Claimed costs included testing, monitoring, treatment, filtration, and compliance-related expenses tied to those detections.
Did the Syngenta atrazine settlement involve personal injury claims?
No. The public water system claims focused on alleged economic and property-based impacts. The case did not seek personal-injury damages for individual consumers.
How much was the Syngenta atrazine drinking water settlement?
The court-approved settlement established a $105 million common fund. The fund was used to pay qualifying community water systems that met the settlement’s atrazine detection criteria.
Which court approved the atrazine drinking water settlement?
The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The court granted final approval on October 23, 2012.
How were payments distributed to qualifying water systems?
Eligible claimants first received a $5,000 payment tied to baseline monitoring costs. After court-approved fees, costs, and administration expenses, remaining funds were allocated based on atrazine concentration levels, detection frequency, timing of detections, and system size.
Environmental Contamination
Groundwater Contamination
Water Quality
Water Treatment
Environmental Toxicology
Ecotoxicology
Chemical Analysis
Groundwater
Agriculture, +4
Agriculture
Agriculture, +4
Agriculture