Florida Grand Jury Blames Governments for Polluted Groundwater

PENSACOLA, Florida, May 5, 2004 (ENS) - A grand jury in Escambia County has issued a report finding "widespread" groundwater contamination in the county, and blaming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and local authorities for failing to prevent or clean up the pollution.

The report makes 24 recommendations to improve ground water quality in Escambia County, located on the western border of Florida's panhandle region.

Despite its finding that "extensive and persistent pollution leads to adverse health effects disruptive of the normal life cycle, including premature death and debilitation, and possibly reproductive impairment," the 21 member grand jury did not issue any criminal indictments for officials named in its report.

"More than one-half of the county's public supply wells has been contaminated with dry cleaning solvents, pesticides, or petroleum products," the grand jury said in the summary of its report, which was written in the public interest at the request of the Office of the State Attorney of the First Judicial Circuit.

Like all children, Pensacola kids need clean drinking water to maintain their health. (Photo courtesy Pensacola First Church)

The Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer is the sole source of the area’s drinking water. "The Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer is very near the land surface, which allows it to be recharged easily, but also to be contaminated easily," the panel states.

The report mentions 424 facilities that contain 1,130 fuel storage tanks in Escambia County and finds that a "substantial number" of these tanks have leaked contaminants into the groundwater.

Leachate from landfills is also contaminating the country's groundwater, but the panel finds that the number and the location of landfills is unknown because "regulatory authorities do not have complete information about closed or abandoned landfills." As a result, government buildings and businesses including shopping centers, recreation facilities, and residences have been built on top of former landfills.

Wood preservatives creosote and pentachlorophenol were discharged into two unlined pits near Pensacola, Florida, for more than 80 years. The contaminants percolated into the underlying sand and gravel aquifer. The ground water moving past the contaminants created a plume 1,000 feet long. (Photo courtesy USGS)

"In these suits, the property owners obtained records that show what they, and many other people, suspect; namely, Conoco, and other companies, are responsible for contamination of an entire area of Pensacola," the grand jury wrote.

"Further, Conoco, and other companies, delayed efforts to determine the extent of contamination, apparently to minimize financial liability. In addition, records show Conoco, and other companies, avoided responsibility for restoring the soil and groundwater by persuading regulators to allow them merely to cover contaminated soil and allow pollutants to flow with the ground water and discharge into Bayou Texar and Pensacola Bay," according to the panel's report.

ConocoPhillips has agreed to a $70 million settlement with Pensacola residents whose property may have been contaminated by a toxic plume that has spread from the old Agrico Chemical Co. fertilizer plant in central Pensacola to Bayou Texar.

Pensacola attorney Mike Papantonio, who filed two suits against Conoco Inc. and its predecessor Agrico Chemical Co. in 2001, announced the out of court settlement on April 5. It still must be approved by the Circuit Court.

It provides $65 million to be divided in varying amounts among a maximum of 7,000 people who own, or have owned, some 3,000 pieces of property since 1957. It also provides $3.6 million for medical monitoring of the some 3,000 residents included in one of the suits.

The grand jury commented that these legal actions may compensate some individuals and help fund medical testing, but, wrote the panel, "they will not compensate the public for the damage to the water supply, which is, by law, a natural resource that belongs to all Floridians."

Now vice president of environmental affairs with International Paper, David Struhs (right) served as secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection from 1999 through April 30, 2004. Here he shakes hands with Captain Randal Bahr, commanding officer, Naval Air Station Pensacola. (Photo courtesy Navel Education and Training Command)

The report refers to the social as well as the environmental consequences of groundwater pollution which "stigmatizes an area" and discourages businesses from locating there.

"Today's grand jury report highlights an appalling pattern of neglect by both the state of Florida and the Bush administration," said Jessica Landman, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "Polluters get a free pass in Florida, while everyone else has to worry about eating contaminated fish, swimming in pollution, or drinking tainted water."

On March 18, NRDC and Sierra Club announced they would sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if it did not assume the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) water pollution control duties. The group's notice of suit cited numerous examples of how the EPA has done nothing while the state agency has allowed industrial facilities to contaminate state waterways.

The NRDC cites the findings of a 1998 Escambia grand jury which determined that neither the EPA nor the Florida DEP was adequately enforcing the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. The EPA "did nothing" in the five years between the two grand juries to address the problem, the environmental group alleges.

Today's grand jury report tasks local and state governments with establishing "a plan to protect and maintain our ground water." The panel said no plan will be adequate unless it recognizes the importance and vulnerability of the groundwater and that acknowledges certain uses are not compatible with the area’s water resources.

"The plan must provide for future supply by setting aside land for new wells before the remaining land best suited for well fields is developed for other inconsistent uses," the panel said.

For the full grand jury report, visit: http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/special/environment/2004/report.shtml