The City of Hastings, Minnesota, has filed a lawsuit against 3M Company in Dakota County District Court, alleging that historical production and emissions associated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) at 3M’s Cottage Grove facility contaminated municipal drinking water wells. The complaint was filed on August 26, 2026, under case number 19HA CV 26 5694, and asserts that five public wells—numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8—contain PFOA above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4 parts per trillion established in April 2024. The standard is enforceable for public water systems.
According to the filing, Hastings owns and operates the affected wells and supplies drinking water to approximately 23,000 residents through more than 7,500 public water customers. The city states it is constructing three water treatment plants equipped with granular activated carbon to remove PFOA from the impacted sources. A central facility is planned at 1290 North Frontage Road and is expected to be completed around spring 2027, with all three plants to follow within the subsequent few years. The complaint estimates total design and construction costs in the tens of millions of dollars and projects ongoing annual operations and maintenance costs of at least hundreds of thousands of dollars for many years.
The complaint describes PFOA as a synthetic compound often referred to as a "forever chemical" because it does not readily break down in the environment. It cites human epidemiological studies, including those referenced by the EPA, that have found associations between PFOA exposure and conditions such as kidney and testicular cancers, elevated cholesterol, thyroid disorders, and pregnancy-related hypertension. These references are presented in the filing as part of the city’s basis for remedial action and requested relief.
Hastings alleges that PFOA and PFOA-based products were manufactured for decades at a dedicated portion of the Cottage Grove site, beginning in the 1940s and continuing until 2002. The complaint states that company records indicate about 2.52 million pounds of finished PFOA goods were produced at the site between 1976 and 1998. It further alleges that air emission controls capable of capturing PFOA emissions were absent for many years during this period.
The city’s theory of contamination, as outlined in the lawsuit, is that PFOA released via air emissions settled onto soils and subsequently leached into groundwater that feeds Hastings’ wells, located several miles southeast of the facility on the opposite side of the Mississippi River. The complaint references a prevailing wind pattern from northwest to southeast—described in a 2025 report regarding air emissions at the site—and points to an analysis indicating that the isomer mix in the PFOA detected in Hastings’ wells matches the profile of PFOA historically produced in the United States by the manufacturer.
The complaint quotes past public statements by the company regarding the detections. It cites a 2024 statement noting that a connection between PFOA in Hastings and the Cottage Grove operations had not been sufficiently established, as well as characterizations of trace levels as safe based on decades of research. The city alleges those statements were inaccurate and asserts that the company has more recently informed Minnesota state regulators that PFOA is the “primary driver for water treatment at the Hastings municipal wells.”
The lawsuit advances several causes of action, including statutory liability for contamination of public wells under Minnesota law, negligence, strict liability, public nuisance, statutory nuisance, and trespass. Hastings seeks compensatory damages for investigation, testing, and monitoring; provision of water from an alternative source; design and construction of treatment systems; and long-term operation and maintenance. The city also requests an order requiring abatement of the alleged contamination, litigation costs and attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and a jury trial.
The complaint specifies that Hastings is not seeking to recover for contamination by PFOS or other PFAS chemicals in this case, nor for contamination related to firefighting foam, and that certain other sites are excluded from its claims. It further confirms the city is not seeking to recover funds previously obtained through a 2018 statewide settlement addressing PFAS contamination. The filing notes that Hastings opted out of a separate nationwide settlement involving public water systems in federal litigation in South Carolina, City of Camden, et al. v. 3M Company. The allegations in the Hastings complaint have not been tested in court.