Croton-on-Hudson is suing 17 chemical and firefighting-product companies to recover costs it attributes to PFAS contamination of its groundwater supply. The Village’s lawsuit seeks payment for investigating, testing, treating and monitoring that contamination, including past and future filtration expenses. The August 13 filing in Westchester County Supreme Court does not put a total dollar amount on the demand. Complaint, PDF pages 1 and 46 The dispute concerns who should pay for work on a public water system. The Village says it owns and operates the wells and has incurred, and expects to continue incurring, costs to address PFAS. It asks the court to make the companies responsible for those expenses. Whether any defendant caused the alleged contamination or owes the Village money remains to be decided. Complaint, PDF page 35 The complaint focuses on aqueous film-forming foam, usually shortened to AFFF, used to fight petroleum and other flammable-liquid fires. It describes PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—and focuses particularly on PFOA and chemicals that can break down into it. The Village alleges that foam or its ingredients reached the area near its wells through firefighting, training and related activities, then migrated into groundwater. Complaint, PDF pages 6–7 The Village alleges PFAS have been detected in its groundwater wells. Its account of the contamination’s source is made on information and belief. The 49-page filing does not identify a particular local spill, training site or release date, and it contains no attached laboratory report with local concentrations. Those distinctions matter: detecting a chemical and establishing which company is legally responsible are separate questions. Complaint, PDF pages 7–8 and 35–37 Named defendants include AGC Chemicals Americas, Honeywell International, Arkema, National Foam and Carrier Global, along with other manufacturers and suppliers. The complaint also reserves claims against unidentified defendants. It groups companies by their alleged roles in making firefighting foam, the substances used in foam, or the chemical ingredients used further up the supply chain. Defendant list and alleged roles, PDF pages 1 and 9–19 That broad defendant list is part of the Village’s theory of responsibility. It argues that mixed batches and chemicals in groundwater make it difficult to identify the manufacturer of a particular product. It asks to pursue the defendants together and advances theories that include assigning responsibility by market share. These are arguments in the complaint; the court has not accepted them in any decision shown in the reviewed state docket. Complaint, PDF pages 36–37 The complaint alleges defective design, failure to warn, negligence, public and private nuisance, and trespass. Its requested compensation covers investigation and sampling, treatment and remediation, and installing and maintaining filtration systems. It also seeks consequential and punitive damages, fees, costs and interest, and demands a jury trial. The filing supplies neither a damages total nor an itemized treatment budget. Claims and requested relief, PDF pages 37–46 The legal effort has a history preceding this state case. On August 14, 2023, trustees voted 4–0 to authorize the Village manager to execute a retainer with Napoli Shkolnik for the National Rural Water Association’s PFAS Cost Recovery Program, subject to the Village attorney’s approval. Resolution 178 of 2023 contemplated participation in federal multidistrict litigation in South Carolina and other appropriate state or federal actions. Official minutes, PDF page 7 At that 2023 meeting, the manager described PFAS detections below the limits then applicable and the possibility of future treatment costs. The Village attorney explained that the firm would receive a percentage of a successful recovery. The 2026 complaint bears signatures from Napoli Shkolnik lawyers and affiliated counsel. The resolution establishes the earlier authorization; it does not establish that this particular state case has been transferred to a federal court. Minutes, PDF pages 7–8; complaint signatures, PDF pages 47–48 EPA’s national monitoring dataset also includes Croton samples collected June 18 and December 11, 2024, at the distribution-system entry point labeled for Wells 1, 3 and 4. On both dates, PFOA and PFOS were below 4 nanograms per liter, or parts per trillion, the program’s reporting level for those chemicals. Below a reporting level does not mean zero. EPA explains that these monitoring results do not determine compliance with drinking-water limits. EPA original data ZIP; EPA data guide, PDF pages 2, 6 and 17 The Village’s 2025 annual drinking-water report provides a separate, dated record of water quality. It says the system had no maximum-contaminant-level or other water-quality-standard violations during 2025. The report identifies the main water source as wells in the Croton River Valley downstream from the New Croton Dam and says the system serves approximately 8,200 people. 2025 water report, PDF pages 1–2 and 6 For July–September 2025, its entries for PFOS, a different PFAS compound from the PFOA emphasized in the complaint, show 3.67 nanograms per liter in Well 1, less than 2.12 in Well 3 and less than 2.00 in Well 4; the table marks those entries as having no violation. The report lists PFOA among substances not detected in 2025 or previous years, without giving a sample-specific date or reporting limit there. These are the report’s stated results and time periods, rather than a 2026 sampling record or a judicial finding. 2025 water report, PDF pages 3–4 and 6 The public NYSCEF record checked October 16 contained one processed filing: the summons and complaint, received August 13. No defense answer, motion, decision or court appearance notice was displayed, and no defense counsel was recorded in Case Detail. That describes the electronic record reviewed; it does not establish that defendants have no lawyers or that a response is overdue. Public state-court docket Croton News will follow service and defense filings, any court orders or transfer, and documents establishing actual treatment costs or a recovery in this case. The PFAS case file keeps the original documents and a dated timeline together, with court events separated from reporting checks and future scheduled proceedings.