Fort Ord Lawsuit: PFAS, TCE, and Agent Orange Claims

A Fort Ord lawsuit today most often means joining the federal Aqueous Film-Forming Foams multidistrict litigation over PFAS exposure, where veterans and former residents with PFAS-linked illnesses file individual personal injury claims against foam manufacturers. Other Fort Ord exposures — trichloroethylene in groundwater, Agent Orange herbicides sprayed on training areas — have not produced a dedicated class action, and those claims currently move through VA disability channels and legislative advocacy rather than the courts.

What the Claims Are About

Fort Ord operated as an Army infantry training base on California’s Monterey Bay from 1917 until it closed in September 1994. It was placed on the EPA’s National Priorities List on February 21, 1990.¹ Decades of vehicle maintenance, a 150-acre landfill, fire training, and munitions ranges left volatile organic compounds in the aquifer beneath the base. The primary groundwater contaminants of concern include trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), carbon tetrachloride, benzene, and vinyl chloride.²

A separate contamination problem, identified more recently, involves per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) introduced through the military’s use of aqueous film-forming foam during firefighting training. Department of Defense data from 2017 recorded PFAS in Fort Ord groundwater at 334 parts per trillion, described as more than 80 times the EPA’s drinking water standard of 4 parts per trillion for PFOS and PFOA.³ More recent site inspections at seven Fort Ord locations found PFOS as high as 19,000 ng/L.⁴

Historical records also document Army use of the herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T — the two components of Agent Orange — at Fort Ord starting in the 1950s for poison oak and brush control. A 1995 Army Corps of Engineers report found TCDD, the dioxin byproduct of 2,4,5-T, in Fort Ord soil at 3.5 parts per trillion, above the 1.2 ppt remediation goal.⁵

PFAS Lawsuits and the AFFF Multidistrict Litigation

There is no Fort Ord-specific class action. Individual personal injury claims from veterans and former residents alleging PFAS-related illnesses are folded into a larger federal multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 2873, formally titled “Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation,” consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel.⁶ The MDL consolidates over 15,000 lawsuits filed by individuals, public water providers, and state and local governments alleging that manufacturers of PFAS-containing firefighting foam knew about the health risks and concealed them.⁷

The primary defendants include 3M, DuPont and its corporate successors Chemours and Corteva, Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard, and BASF Corporation.⁸ On the public water system side of the MDL, several large settlements have received final court approval: DuPont at $1.185 billion, 3M at between $10.5 billion and $12.5 billion, Tyco at $750 million, and BASF at $316.5 million.⁷ Those settlements resolve claims by water providers, not personal injury claims. Personal injury cases have not yet gone to trial; a trial scheduled for October 2025 was postponed by Judge Gergel to allow for vetting of unfiled cases.

Health conditions forming the basis of PFAS personal injury claims include kidney cancer, liver cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer and thyroid disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, leukemia, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, and ulcerative colitis.

TCE and Cancer Claims by Fort Ord Veterans

TCE contamination has generated public health concern but not a dedicated Fort Ord lawsuit against the government. TCE, a widely used industrial solvent and degreaser, is now classified as a known human carcinogen with a strong link to kidney cancer and suspected links to blood cancers. Army testing of Fort Ord wells between 1985 and 1994 produced 43 test results, 18 of which exceeded legal safety limits for TCE.⁹

VA cancer data show that veterans who served at Fort Ord have a 35% higher rate of multiple myeloma diagnosis compared to the general U.S. population. Even so, there have been no new epidemiological studies of Fort Ord veterans’ health since the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a 1996 assessment concluding there were “no likely past, present or future risks from exposures at Fort Ord.” Thomas Burke of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told reporters the assessment was based on limited data that preceded current medical understanding of the link between chemicals like TCE and cancer, and said conducting a comprehensive study now is “difficult, if not impossible” because past exposure levels cannot be reliably reconstructed.⁹

Scott Lindquist, a veteran stationed at Fort Ord during the 1980s, has been diagnosed with three rare cancers, including multiple myeloma, and has received chemotherapy since 2014 after a stem cell transplant. He applied for VA disability benefits twice and was denied both times, with the VA relying on the 1996 ATSDR report as evidence of the base’s safety.¹⁰

Agent Orange Claims and the 2024 VA Proposed Rule

A 1951 Army agronomist report documented a systematic program spraying a mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T with diesel oil at Fort Ord at rates of 4 to 8 pounds of acid per acre. A hazardous waste minimization assessment reported approximately 80,000 pounds of herbicides used annually at the installation, and a December 1980 Department of the Army memorandum confirmed the Fort Ord Pest Control Shop maintained monthly records of Agent Orange and herbicide usage dating back to January 1973.¹¹

The Department of Defense nevertheless maintains that its review found “no documentation of herbicide use, testing or storage at Fort Ord.” The Pentagon’s official list of installations where tactical herbicides were used, tested, or stored — used by the VA to determine eligibility for presumptive disability benefits — does not include Fort Ord. A 2018 Government Accountability Office report described that list as “inaccurate and incomplete.”⁵

In February 2024, the VA proposed a rule providing presumptive disability compensation for herbicide exposure at 17 U.S. military bases. The list excluded Fort Ord and roughly four dozen other installations where advocates say herbicide use is documented.¹² Rather than naming specific bases, the proposed rule ties the VA presumption to the DoD’s official site list: if DoD adds Fort Ord, the VA presumption follows automatically. The comment period closed in April 2024.¹³ Environmental activist Pat Elder of Military Poisons has tracked over 1,400 former residents and service members who developed cancer or other illnesses after time at Fort Ord.¹¹

Fort Ord Toxics Project v. California EPA

The earliest significant Fort Ord lawsuit was a challenge to the cleanup itself. In the 1990s, the Fort Ord Toxics Project, the California Public Interest Research Group, and two individual plaintiffs sued the California Environmental Protection Agency and its Department of Toxic Substances Control, alleging the state agency violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to prepare an environmental impact report before authorizing the Army to deviate from state hazardous waste disposal requirements during the Superfund cleanup.¹⁴

The Army removed the case to federal court and argued for dismissal under CERCLA Section 113(h), which bars federal courts from hearing challenges to Superfund cleanup actions. The district court agreed. In September 1999, the Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that Section 113(h) bars challenges to “removal actions” under CERCLA Section 104 but not challenges to “remedial actions” at federal facilities conducted under Section 120. Because the Fort Ord cleanup was a remedial action under Section 120, the jurisdictional bar did not apply, and the case could proceed.¹⁴ The ruling created a precedent for citizens and environmental groups seeking to challenge the conduct of Superfund cleanups on federal land.¹⁵

VA Benefits and Legislative Efforts

For many Fort Ord veterans, the fight is not in a courtroom but at the VA, where the absence of a presumptive service connection for the base’s toxic exposures forces individuals to independently prove that their illnesses are linked to their service. Unlike Camp Lejeune, where the VA has recognized a presumptive connection between water contamination and several cancers for service members stationed there between 1953 and 1987, Fort Ord has no such designation for any category of exposure.⁹

Retired Army Lt. Col. Gary Sauer, who spent the first four years of a 22-year career at Fort Ord, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and a rare kidney disease, which he attributes to PFAS exposure at contaminated military installations. He is pursuing his own VA claim with the support of blood testing and an oncologist’s letter. In November 2023, Representative Dan Kildee cited Sauer’s case on the House floor in support of the VET PFAS Act, legislation intended to ensure that veterans exposed to PFAS receive VA healthcare benefits. Kildee said: “The VA continues to deny veterans, like Lieutenant Colonel Sauer, coverage for PFAS-related illnesses.”¹⁶

Sauer’s story also appears in a September 2024 report by the Disabled American Veterans and the Military Officers Association of America titled “Ending the Wait for Toxic-Exposed Veterans,” which calls on the VA and Congress to create presumptive conditions for PFAS and other toxic exposures.¹⁷ The VA does not currently concede PFAS exposure for veterans who served at contaminated locations, nor does it officially acknowledge a 2022 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report identifying diseases associated with PFAS.³

The Army’s Position on Ongoing PFAS Response

The Army has not denied responsibility for the broader Superfund cleanup, which it has conducted under EPA oversight since 1990, but it takes a narrower position on newer PFAS contamination. On drinking water, the Army notes it “no longer owns or operates a drinking water system at this closed installation” and that the Marina Coast Water District is responsible for sampling and supplying water that meets federal and state standards.¹⁸

After the EPA finalized enforceable drinking water standards for PFOS and PFOA at 4 parts per trillion in April 2024, the Army said it is taking actions to comply within the required five-year timeframe. Under a September 2024 DoD policy update, the Army will provide bottled water, filtration, or municipal connections for private drinking water wells where PFOS or PFOA reaches or exceeds 12 parts per trillion, three times the EPA standard. Concentrations between 4 and 12 ppt are addressed through the full Superfund process.¹⁸

The PFAS remedial investigation at Fort Ord is still early. A 2022 preliminary assessment evaluated roughly 50 sites for PFAS impacts, seven moved to the site inspection phase, and groundwater testing at several confirmed exceedances of screening levels. The Army has proposed five sites for the next phase of remedial investigation, with working group meetings that began in 2024 developing a work plan.¹⁹ Those findings will shape future cleanup decisions and may inform later litigation.

If you served at or lived near Fort Ord and have been diagnosed with a PFAS-linked illness, the active litigation route is a personal injury claim within MDL 2873 against the AFFF manufacturers. If your claim is TCE or herbicide-based, the current path is a VA disability claim supported by your own medical evidence, together with advocacy pressure to add Fort Ord to the DoD’s official herbicide site list and to create presumptive service connections for the base.

1
U.S. EPA. Fort Ord Partial Deletion Proposed Rule
2
U.S. EPA. Fort Ord Superfund Site – Health and Environment
3
DAV. Retired Army Veteran Fights for Recognition of Toxic Forever Chemicals
4
California Central Coast Water Board. Staff Report – Former Fort Ord PFAS Investigation
5
KFF Health News. Agent Orange US Bases Veterans Face Cancer Without VA Compensation
6
U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina. MDL 2873 – AFFF Products Liability Litigation
7
Arizona State University Embryo Project. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873
8
PFAS Water Settlement. AFFF Settlement
9
KSBW. Vets Worry Fort Ord Polluted Base Made Them Ill
10
New York Post. Veterans Worry Polluted Base Made Them Ill
11
GovInfo. Lawmaker Agent Orange Evidence Compilation
12
KFF Health News. Agent Orange Veterans Exposed Fort Ord California
13
Regulations.gov. VA Proposed Rule on Herbicide Exposure Presumptions
14
FindLaw. Fort Ord Toxics Project v. California Environmental Protection Agency
15
Tulane Environmental Law Journal. Fort Ord Toxics Project v. California Environmental Protection Agency – The Ninth Circuit Unburies Public Oversight
16
GovInfo. Congressional Record – VET PFAS Act
17
MOAA. Ending the Wait – Veterans Share Stories of Toxic Exposure
18
U.S. Army Environmental Command. Fort Ord PFAS Information
19
Fort Ord Cleanup. Fort Ord PFAS Site Inspection Presentation