Aquifer fight looms

PROVO — Attorneys for an explosives plant accused of contaminating Mapleton's water have asked a judge to dismiss a multimillion-dollar lawsuit the city filed against the company.

At issue is the wording of a 1997 agreement between Spanish Fork-based Ensign Bickford Industries and Mapleton city officials, who filed the suit in 2003 when tests found more contamination of the area.

Attorneys for both the city and the now-shuttered Spanish Fork plant squared off this week in 4th District Judge Anthony Schofield's courtroom.

Ensign Bickford attorneys told the judge that city officials released the company from liability for any damages to a city aquifer when they signed the agreement.

City attorneys, however, argued that the liability release was only for one water well — not for an aquifer that provides water to much of the city.

In the liability-release agreement, Mapleton officials, based on what the city knew about the pollution in 1997, agreed to absolve the company from responsibility relating to a tainted water well.

In exchange, Ensign Bickford had agreed to clean up the well and be responsible for other pollution it caused in that process.

However, the city, not entirely satisfied with the cleanup efforts, filed the pending suit, which includes a claim for action concerning air quality because the city says there are TNT particles in the air due to the burning of toxic chemicals during the plant's operations.

The plant, which operated near the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon since the 1940s, closed in February. In the early 1980s, investigators found chemicals leaching from the factory into Mapleton city wells.

Many blamed cancer deaths of Mapleton residents on the contaminated water. The company, which has been previously owned by both Trojan Corp. and Mallincrockdt Inc., settled the lawsuits. Terms were not disclosed.

"The city, when they signed the agreement, they knew there was contamination coming from the plant that would continue for some indefinite time," said Joe Nassif, attorney for Ensign-Bickford, about the toxins in the water. "I believe that I can demonstrate that what was released in the agreement . . . included the entire aquifer."

Nassif argues that because the agreement refers to wells in the plural — not the singular — it implies that the city knew there were multiple contaminated wells, not just Mapleton Well No. 1.

However, the city argues that they would never have agreed to release the company from liability, especially for an entire aquifer.

The liability release, said Doug Thayer, the attorney representing Mapleton, is for Mapleton Well No. 1.

"Two references to an aquifer," he said, "do not a release make."

If the judge agrees with Ensign-Bickford, the lawsuit is over and Mapleton will have to consider an appeal.

However, if the judge refuses to dismiss Mapleton's claims, the case will proceed to a trial.

---

E-mail: sisraelsen@desnews.com