|
|
Road
Salt Contamination Claims: Technical And Legal Issues
(from Maine Townsman, November 2004)
By Keith Taylor, CG, Stratex, LLC, Gregory Cunningham, Esq., Bernstein
Shur Sawyer & Nelson
Even during low snow winters such as our most recent one, Maine
municipalities depend on salt to keep their roads safe for the
public. Some have their own salt storage piles at the public works
garage, while others use a private contractor to supply and/or
treat the roads. The salt is usually mixed with sand and liberally
spread on trouble spots such as hills and at busy intersections.
Slick roads are particularly a problem in the more rural communities
where the roads still have sharp curves and steep slopes inherited
from the old horse and wagon paths of the past. Unfortunately,
these rural areas are also known for their reliance on private
water supply wells. Most municipalities are aware that salt leaching
from storage piles can contaminate wells, but road runoff containing
salt is also the source of contamination for many private wells.
Legal claims by citizens against Maine municipalities for salt-contaminated
wells are much more common than you might think. A Maine statute
specifically addresses the process for filing such claims and
describes the responsibilities of the municipality. These claims
can cost thousands of dollars to simply assess their validity,
even if the claim never goes to court. If the municipality is
responsible, the costs for a new well, treatment, and/or other
damages can reach into the tens of thousands of dollars. It may
be too late to avoid a claim if salt contaminated-ground water
is already heading toward someone’s well. However, this
article should help you understand why the contamination occurs,
how to deal with homeowner’s claims, and what your legal
responsibilities are.
Road Salt Contamination
The most well-known source of salt in ground water is salt storage
piles. In the past, road salt was usually stored in large uncovered
piles. Rain and snow falling on the pile dissolves the salt and
carries it into the ground, where it enters the water table. Continued
leaching of salt through time produces a “plume” of
salty water that migrates away from the salt pile in the direction
of ground water flow, which usually follows the slope of the land.
If the migrating plume reaches a well, or is drawn toward the
well because of pumping, the well becomes contaminated. These
contamination plumes can be hundreds of feet long and therefore
may contaminate a well for many years even after the salt pile
is covered or removed.
Because of the risk these salt piles posed to public and private
ground water supplies, the Maine DEP completed a risk rating in
1986 of all known public and private road salt storage areas.
As many readers may know, this priority list was to be used by
the Maine DOT to direct funds for the construction of salt storage
buildings. However, fund shortages prevented many buildings from
being constructed, so the DEP updated the list in 2000 and identified
a subset of salt piles that posed the greatest risk to ground
water supplies. These high-risk sites remain eligible for funding
from the DOT.
Despite the construction of many new salt storage buildings, contamination
still occurs from road salt that remains in the ground from previously
uncovered salt storage piles, and from the direct application
of salt to roads. Salt contamination from road applications is
more difficult to predict and assess than from salt piles since
the pathway of the salt to the well may not be obvious. In the
simplest case, this type of contamination occurs when the road
grade or drainage system channels the salty meltwater directly
toward the well. However, road salt contamination can sometimes
occur where this type of surface flow is not evident.
The most common indicators of salt contamination are taste and
corrosion or staining of plumbing fixtures. Other indicators of
salt contamination include corrosion of water heater components
and well pumps, stressed vegetation in the yard, and unhealthy
houseplants. Homeowners typically will contact a local laboratory
and have a sample tested for chloride and sodium. For uncontaminated
wells in Maine, the average concentrations of chloride and sodium
are 29 and 13 milligrams per liter (mg/L), respectively. Highly
contaminated wells can show chloride and sodium concentrations
between 500 and 1,000 mg/L. Elevated chloride in drinking water
does not represent a health risk, but a Federal Secondary Drinking
Water Standard of 250 mg/L is in place because of the taste and
corrosion problems. Elevated sodium concentrations can pose a
risk to those on a low sodium diet due to high blood pressure
or other health problems, therefore the State has established
a Maximum Exposure Guideline of 20 mg/L. There is no Federal drinking
water standard for sodium.
Other Sources of Salt Contamination
It is important to note that there are other possible sources
of salt contamination in a well. Modern seawater intrusion can
contaminate a well near the coastline. Trapped ancient seawater
has been documented in Maine as a source of salty water in private
wells. Septic system leachfield discharges can produce localized
plumes of ground water high in salt under certain conditions.
A detailed analysis of water quality, well construction, and site
geology are needed to determine if any of these or any other alternative
sources are the cause of elevated salt concentrations in a well.
Legal Claims and Responsibilities of a Municipality
Municipalities in Maine should be familiar with the specific statutory
provisions that outline both the procedure for addressing road
salt contamination claims and that define the scope of any liability
arising from such contamination.
In 1987 the Legislature enacted 23 M.R.S.A. § 3659, which
creates a cause of action for any landowner whose private water
supply located on his or her land has been “destroyed or
rendered unfit for human consumption” by a municipality
or other political subdivision. Arguably the impacts contemplated
by section 3659 can include road salt contamination of private
water supplies. A municipality is susceptible to liability under
this provision if it has damaged a private water supply as a result
of its construction or maintenance of a public highway under the
municipality’s jurisdiction. The State is also potentially
liable for its acts of construction and maintenance that impact
private water supplies located on land adjacent to state or state-aid
highways, pursuant to a separate statutory provision. See 23 M.R.S.A.
§ 652. As a result, any claim must be analyzed closely to
determine whether it involves either actions of the municipality,
alleges actions taken on municipal roads, or both.
Section 3659 places limitations on both the scope of liability
and the damages that a municipality may confront in a road salt
contamination case. Any damages claimed must be based on the lesser
of (a) the difference between the fair market value of the property
before the private water supply was impacted and its fair market
value thereafter or (b) the cost to cure any damage to the private
water supply. A municipality will not be liable if the private
water supply is located within the road right of way, if the location
of the private water supply does not provide for adequate surface
drainage (unless the surface drainage problems were as a result
of the municipality’s actions in constructing or maintaining
the road), or if the private water supply was contaminated by
another source prior to the municipality’s work on the road.
Road salt contamination claims have their own notice and settlement
procedures as well. Because the cause of action created by section
3659 is a statutory exception to the Maine Tort Claims Act, municipalities
must be mindful that the less common road salt contamination claim
procedure must be followed. The statute requires that the landowner
apply in writing to the municipality for a determination of the
cause of the unfit private water supply and an assessment of damages
resulting from it. This application must be filed within two years
after completion of the roadwork at issue and must set forth specific
information relative to the private land at issue and its owner,
and must describe both the damage and the perceived cause of that
damage. The triggering of this limitations period for filing claims
is the date of the completion of the work as documented in the
records of the municipality. The municipality is obligated to
respond within 90 days of receipt of the application. A timely
response to the claim is critical, as a one-year statute of limitations
for filing a claim in superior court begins to run as of the municipality’s
response. This response must either deny responsibility or propose
an offer of settlement. The statute suggests that the municipality
consider remedies that include replacing the water supply (as
well as any piping, tanks, pumps, heating systems or related fixtures
that were impacted), repairing the damage to the water supply,
or offering to either purchase the affected property or to pay
a monetary settlement.
Should the municipality deny responsibility, the landowner’s
recourse is to file suit against the municipality in the superior
court of the county in which the land is located within one year
after receiving the municipality’s response. A court-appointed
referee thereafter hears and rules upon the landowner’s
claims.
How to Assess Contamination Claims
It is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate that the
municipality is responsible for road salt contamination of their
well. Most claims are based on one or more laboratory reports
provided by the homeowner. However, as discussed earlier, there
are a variety of mechanisms for wells to become contaminated and
different sources for salt contamination. Before assuming responsibility,
a municipality should seek the advice of an environmental professional
experienced in ground water contamination. Additional sampling
or other investigations may be necessary to assess the claim and
evaluate the possible remedies.
Options for Settling Claims
Road salt contamination in ground water can take years to dissipate
even after the source of contamination has been removed. Removing
the contaminated ground water would be very expensive and impractical.
Therefore, if a municipality assumes responsibility, and assuming
public water is not available in the area, there are three primary
options for settling road salt contamination claims: 1) modifying
the existing well, 2) installing a new well, or 3) installing
a water treatment system. In some cases, an existing well can
be modified to seal off the water-bearing fractures in the rock
that are the source of the salt. However, geologic investigations
may be necessary to determine if this approach is feasible. A
new well is the simplest solution since it represents a one-time
cost for the municipality. One possible complication is if there
isn’t a suitable location on the property for a new well.
This situation can arise when the salt contamination is found
to be present throughout the property, or setback limitations
are present due to property lines or septic systems. An easement
on an adjacent property may be necessary under these circumstances.
Installation of a water treatment system is always feasible but
is expensive. Annual maintenance and electricity costs will be
significant and represent a long-term responsibility of the municipality.
Summary
Road salt contamination claims against municipalities are more
common in Maine than you may think. Despite the covering of many
salt piles, groundwater contamination may still exist or could
be generated from road salting. However, other sources of salt
contamination in wells do exist. Salt contamination generally
does not present a health threat, but can result in damaged plumbing
fixtures and make the water unusable. A Maine statute outlines
the procedures for making claims against a municipality and how
a municipality is to respond. Because the legal and technical
costs for settling claims can be high, Maine municipalities should
be familiar with the technical and legal implications of road
salt contamination claims.
|