In Pearson, et al. v. Portland General Electric Company and Columbia River Processing, LLC, residents in Morrow and Umatilla counties allege that nitrate contamination in groundwater and public water systems is being exacerbated by how two industrial operators manage nitrate-heavy wastewater through the Port of Morrow’s industrial wastewater treatment and land-application system.
Filed December 5, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Pendleton Division), the complaint seeks class certification for residents relying on private wells and public water systems within areas associated with the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area (LUBGWMA). Plaintiffs assert a federal citizen-suit claim under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), alongside Oregon-law claims including negligence, trespass, and private nuisance. Requested remedies include injunctive relief and a medical monitoring program.
According to the complaint, Portland General Electric (PGE) and Columbia River Processing, LLC are alleged to generate “hundreds of millions of gallons” of nitrate-containing wastewater annually and to send that wastewater to the Port of Morrow’s system, despite alleged knowledge that the Port has repeatedly violated its land-application permit.
Plaintiffs allege the Port has committed more than 2,000 permit violations since 2015, and that wastewater is land-applied without adequate nitrate removal, allowing nitrates to migrate into groundwater and move downgradient toward residential and public drinking water wells.
The complaint ties these allegations to regulatory thresholds and state testing data:
Individual examples cited in the filing include a private well allegedly testing at 46.8 mg/L, with post-treatment water still testing at 16.4 mg/L, and another private well allegedly testing at 15 mg/L.
The strategic significance of the lawsuit extends beyond nitrate chemistry. The case raises a governance question increasingly relevant for large facilities and industrial operators: to what extent does continued reliance on a third-party wastewater system with a documented compliance history create direct enterprise liability?
The remedies sought highlight the stakes. Plaintiffs estimate that connecting affected households to public water systems or drilling deeper wells could average $40,000 per household, with ongoing public-water costs estimated at $1,000 per year—figures presented as part of the requested mitigation framework.
The allegations have not been adjudicated. But the lawsuit underscores how water quality, wastewater partnerships, and permit compliance are converging into a visible litigation risk, particularly in regions where industrial growth intersects with groundwater dependence.
For EHS, facilities, and compliance leaders, the case serves as a reminder that outsourced environmental functions do not eliminate accountability—and that vendor compliance histories are increasingly central to risk exposure.
For brands and agencies looking to reach the decision-makers who read E+E Leader:
Request the media kit and learn more about advertising and partnership opportunities.
