Marathon County committee moves to consider joining PFAS litigation over firefighting foam and landfill leachate

The Marathon County Infrastructure Committee on Thursday voted to send a request to the full county board to consider engaging outside counsel and further briefings on joining ongoing multi‑district litigation over PFAS contamination.

A staff memo summarized why the litigation is being organized and which local county activities could be implicated. Administrator Leonard told the committee the litigation, coordinated through national counsel and organized as a multi‑district litigation in South Carolina, is focused on cleanup costs associated with PFAS, notably AFFF (aqueous film forming foam) historically used for aircraft firefighting and on costs tied to treatment of landfill leachate.

"We are the receiver of areawide material that breaks down and releases PFAS into the leachate," Leonard said, describing why landfill operations could expose the county to future remediation costs. He also said the county jointly owns land that hosts the central Wisconsin airport, where use of firefighting foam was a federal requirement in training exercises.

Public commenter Katie Rosenberg, a Marathon County resident, said she had read the county packet and appreciated the background materials. "It was a good memo," she told the committee, and said she was interested in whether the county could recover remediation costs and noted she had heard from staff that leachate hauling and treatment run about $1 million per year.

Committee discussion covered technical and programmatic issues staff said would figure into any decision to pursue litigation, including the scope of potential county claims (airport training foam, landfill leachate, incidental use of PFAS‑coated materials), the structure of attorney engagement (contingency fee and costs), and how a settlement or award might be restricted for use. Administrator Leonard said outside counsel would provide more detail at an upcoming county board educational meeting and that questions from supervisors were being compiled for that briefing.

Supervisor Lur said committee members had sent many questions to the administrator and requested additional clarity on how state proposals and a proposed PFAS trust fund might intersect with litigation and potential grants or reimbursements.

The committee voted unanimously to forward authorization to engage outside counsel (and to make further inquiries) to the full county board for consideration. Staff said attorney Andy Phillips and representatives from national counsel will be asked to present at the board’s educational meeting to answer detailed questions.

What’s next: the full county board will receive the request and staff expects national counsel to appear at the educational meeting to explain the litigation structure, scope and potential implications for county operations.