Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

PFAS Contamination in San Joaquin County

Attorney Michael Rehm represents individuals and families harmed by PFAS contamination in San Joaquin County drinking water and soil. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — known as PFAS or “forever chemicals” — are a class of thousands of synthetic chemicals used since the 1940s in industrial applications, non-stick coatings, food packaging, firefighting foam, and hundreds of consumer and commercial products. They are called forever chemicals because they do not break down in the environment or in the human body. PFAS accumulates in tissue over time, and exposure from contaminated drinking water, soil, or food sources compounds with each subsequent exposure.

PFAS contamination of groundwater and drinking water supplies is documented throughout California, including in San Joaquin County. The primary contamination sources in this region include industrial operations in the Lathrop-Manteca corridor and military and former military installations that used aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in fire suppression training. PFAS from AFFF applications has migrated through soil into groundwater at and around these sites, affecting drinking water wells that serve nearby communities.

Health Effects of PFAS Exposure

PFAS exposure is associated with a range of serious health conditions documented in epidemiological and toxicological research. Kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, immune system disruption, preeclampsia during pregnancy, and adverse developmental outcomes in children exposed in utero or through breast milk are among the conditions linked to PFAS exposure in peer-reviewed literature.

The Environmental Protection Agency has established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for several PFAS compounds in drinking water. These MCLs represent the agency's determination of the maximum level at which PFAS may be present in public water supplies without posing an unacceptable health risk. A municipal water supplier that provided water exceeding applicable MCLs may face liability under multiple legal theories. For current EPA PFAS drinking water standards, visit the EPA PFAS page.

The Legal Framework

Products liability. Manufacturers of PFAS-containing products — including 3M, DuPont, and their corporate successors — that knew or should have known of PFAS's health risks and failed to warn users, downstream industries, and the public face failure to warn liability under California's strict products liability doctrine. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57. Where manufacturers had actual knowledge of health risks and concealed that knowledge from regulators and the public, negligence and fraud claims may also be available, and may support punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294.

Government entity liability. Where a municipal water supplier provided drinking water containing PFAS at concentrations exceeding regulatory standards, liability may exist under Government Code § 835 (dangerous condition of public property) and related public entity liability theories. A government tort claim must be presented within six months of the date the injury accrued under Government Code § 911.2. The accrual date in a PFAS contamination case depends on when the plaintiff knew or should have known of both the contamination and its health effects — a factual question that requires case-specific analysis.

Negligence. Industrial operators responsible for PFAS contamination of soil or groundwater owe a duty of ordinary care to persons whose water supplies are affected. Civil Code § 1714(a). Where an industrial operator knew or should have known that PFAS releases from its facility would contaminate nearby water supplies and cause harm, and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or remediate that contamination, negligence liability attaches.

Federal environmental claims. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) provide additional remedies in some circumstances involving hazardous substance contamination. These federal frameworks operate alongside, not instead of, state tort claims.

PFAS Contamination Sources in San Joaquin County

The Lathrop area has documented PFAS contamination associated with industrial operations including a former Dow Chemical facility. Groundwater plumes from industrial PFAS releases have affected private and public water wells in surrounding communities. The extent of contamination, its migration pathway, and the affected water systems are subjects of ongoing regulatory investigation by the State Water Resources Control Board and local water agencies.

Castle Air Force Base, located in adjacent Merced County, conducted decades of AFFF fire suppression training that produced PFAS groundwater contamination. Groundwater does not respect county lines — PFAS plumes from military installations migrate with groundwater flow and can affect wells in adjacent jurisdictions. Communities in southern San Joaquin County and the Merced County border area should be evaluated for potential AFFF-related PFAS exposure.

Damages

California law entitles an injured person to compensation for all detriment proximately caused by another's negligence or a defective product, whether or not that detriment could have been anticipated. Civ. Code § 3333. In PFAS contamination cases, damages include costs of medical monitoring and evaluation, treatment of PFAS-associated diseases, lost earnings and diminished earning capacity, physical pain and mental suffering, and future medical expenses. Civ. Code §§ 3281, 3282, 3283.

Medical monitoring damages — the cost of periodic medical surveillance for persons with documented PFAS exposure who have not yet developed a diagnosed condition — may be available in California under the framework established in Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965. This doctrine recognizes that persons exposed to toxic substances face an increased risk of future disease that warrants medical surveillance even before illness manifests.

Statute of Limitations and Discovery Rule

The statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years from the date the claim accrues. Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. In PFAS contamination cases, the discovery rule applies: the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known both that they were harmed and that the harm was caused by PFAS contamination. Given the long latency periods associated with PFAS-related cancers and other diseases, and the recency of public awareness of PFAS health risks, the discovery rule analysis is highly fact-specific. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

San Joaquin County Superior Court

PFAS contamination cases in San Joaquin County are litigated at the San Joaquin County Superior Court, 180 E. Weber Ave., Stockton, CA 95202. Civil departments 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, and 11B. Branch courts in Lodi (315 W. Elm St.) and Manteca (315 E. Center St.). Court reporters are not provided in civil departments — parties must retain their own. Local Rule 3-102(J).

Related Pages

• Stockton Personal Injury Attorney
• Stockton Paraquat & Pesticide Exposure Attorney
• Stockton Catastrophic Injury Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm handles PFAS contamination cases throughout San Joaquin County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 for a free consultation.

The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.