County Commissioner Al French fights back with newly released documents muddling the waters in PFAS saga
Documents recently released by Spokane County Commissioner Al French raise more questions about the government and community response to the contaminated waters of the West Plains.
Days after an article ran in The Spokesman-Review highlighting activists’ concerns over French’s response to the tainted water supply, French, who sits on the Spokane International Airport Board, provided documentation rebutting those claims.
French also pointed to shortcomings among those activists’ own response and that of the state’s regulating environmental agency, countering what he has described as political attacks as he seeks re-election .
The emails, contracts and assorted documents French provided highlight attempts by the airport to disclose the PFAS contamination to the public dating back to its 2017 discovery, seeming inconsistencies between the state Department of Ecology’s response to a past toxic chemical spill at Spokane International Airport and the current enforcement order imposed on the airport, as well as disorder among the activists’ working to educate others. The chemicals seeped into the water from firefighting foam at nearby Fairchild Air Force Base and the Spokane International Airport and are linked to a host of health problems.
French said the release is the fruits of what he had promised a crowd of West Plains residents at a public meeting in June, when he said he had county staff going through seven years of his activity at the county, airport and other boards.
“So we’re going to be coming forward with a record and documents so that we can answer that question, because, quite honestly, I don’t remember everything that happened seven years ago,” French said at the meeting. “We do have records that can identify that, and we’re going to make it public. Everything that I knew at the time.”
Critics of French, including his opponent for re-election, Molly Marshall, have posited for months the airport board had not been forthcoming about the discovery of the contamination.
Some, like West Plains Water Coalition President John Hancock, have gone as far as accusing French of orchestrating a cover-up to protect the interests of the airport and S3R3 Solutions, a public board tasked with facilitating private investment and development on airport property.
“There’s nothing I did that was inappropriate or biased or trying to hide anything,” French said in an interview last week. “It’s not a thing. There’s not a single record that supports that claim other than their claim, and they got no basis for it.”
When asked, airport leadership and French have pointed to a 2017 interaction with KREM reporter Whitney Ward as evidence of attempts to be transparent about their discovery of high levels of PFAS in three of their four wells.
Emails provided by French show the interaction did occur, in contrast to what the television reporter told another Spokane media outlet.
Airport spokesman Todd Woodard emailed the reporter detailed responses to her questions regarding how long and how often PFAS-containing firefighting foam was used on airport grounds, the results of the initial testing conducted that summer that revealed the contamination and further steps the airport would be taking to respond.
Ward confirmed receiving Woodard’s response, according to the documents French provided.
French feels targeted
French is not the only elected leader on regional boards overseeing the airport, development on the West Plains and the residents who live in the affected area. He’s pointed to that fact as what he considers unwarranted focus on him.
The seven-member airport board includes three seats for the county, three for the city and one nonspecific appointee.
The board for S3R3 also includes two city of Spokane representatives: City Council President Betsy Wilkerson, who is a current member of the airport board, and interim City Administrator Garrett Jones. The airport itself lies within the city of Spokane’s jurisdiction.
French said any knowledge he would have had after initial and subsequent testing on airport grounds would have also been provided to his fellow airport board members including the city’s representatives.
Past board members and city leaders have either declined to comment or denied being provided any information relevant to the contamination. Former City Council President Ben Stuckart said last month he had no recollection of being informed about the issue during his stint on the airport board.
While local leaders have had to answer for what they knew and when, particularly French, he believes that attention and criticism should also extend to the Washington State Department of Ecology.
He questioned why an Ecology response to a hazardous material spill on the airport grounds more than a decade ago differed from its extensive response to the PFAS contamination, and why it took years for the department to find a fiscal agent to award the $450,000 grant currently being used for an areawide groundwater investigation.
The city of Medical Lake was awarded the grant in 2023 after several local boards and jurisdictions declined to be the fiscal agent hosting the grant due to contractual agreements, conflicts of interest or staffing challenges.
“They were the ones that actually delayed the study for three years trying to get somebody else to do their work,” French said. “Why did they? Why didn’t they just step to the line and do the studies from the very beginning, back in 2020? That’s their job. They have the authority, they have the resources.”
Members of the state’s Air National Guard spilled carbon tetrachloride on a piece of airport grounds in the 2000’s, according to an environmental covenant the department entered into with the National Guard in 2010.
Carbon tetrachloride was once widely used as a cleaning agent and grain fumigant, and is still used today in the manufacturing of propellants. Long-term exposure can lead to liver cancer, kidney failure, nerve damage and digestive disorders.
As a result of the spill, Ecology prohibited consumption of the groundwater on the property, according to the covenant.
Ecology spokeswoman Stephanie May said the different contaminations sparked different responses from the regulatory agency because they differed in size and severity. The tetrachloride spill was contained to airport property, was less toxic and “didn’t pose a significant or immediate threat to people and other living things,” May said in a written statement.
May added that the site was cleaned up in accordance with Washington law through the department’s Voluntary Cleanup Program, which helps property owners clean up their sight on their own accord.
That’s in contrast to the other cleanup option, under Ecology’s supervision, which is what the airport is currently contending with. The covenant was created to enshrine the water use restrictions, as the amount of carbon tetrachloride remained above federal standards after cleanup efforts.
“The risk posed by PFAS in groundwater at the airport necessitates Ecology to use our formal cleanup process, which is consistent with our process at all higher-risk sites,” May said.
Controversy within the coalition
The activists critical of the local response to the contaminated water in eastern Spokane County have organized into a nonprofit organization, the West Plains Water Coalition, to further advocate for affected residents.
The coalition received a Department of Ecology public participation grant last year, funding up to $60,000 a year to increase public awareness of contaminated sites in the state.
But internal emails between Ecology staffers provided by French highlight extensive turnover among the coalition’s leadership and mismanagement of the grant funding.
Ecology denied more than $30,000 in reimbursement requests as of March because the expenses were not properly documented, lacked specifics or were “flat-out ineligible,” according to the emails.
“Why did they bill Ecology for money for expenses that should have been covered by other money to begin with?” French said.
The denial came after board members, except Hancock, quit the organization.
Former coalition Vice President Mo Noder told Ecology their concerns stemmed from Hancock’s “unilateral decision making,” “poor communication,” and “lack of clarity about his activity and financial decisions,” according to the emails provided by French. Noder did not return a request for comment.
Ecology grant manager Laura Busby, in emails asking her superiors for guidance on how to move forward with the coalition, described the group as struggling, and the grant award and subsequent mishandling of the funds as “a potential train wreck.”
While admitting some difficulties in Ecology’s ability to assist the organization, Busby wrote those considerations do not excuse Hancock’s “poor communication, poor financial management and a lack of follow through on eligibility guidelines.”
Hancock admitted to what he called “growing pains” for his fledgling organization earlier this year.
“We learned how much red tape there was on a government contract. And it was foreign to all of us how complicated it was to actually meet all the compliance requirements,” he said. “So it was a year of learning some tough lessons about how tight the red tape is.”
In a statement this week, May admitted understanding the “nuances of grants can be tricky” and that new recipients of Ecology grants like the coalition need help to know what is eligible and can be reimbursed.
Former board member Nick Scharff said he continues to support the coalition and its work but resigned from the board because of a “lack of communication” from Hancock regarding decisions made as president.
“I don’t want to talk negatively at all about that because it’s a great organization. But my philosophy and Hancock’s as president were different in regard to how to run an organization,” Scharf said. “So I chose to remove myself, as did three or four other board members.”
Despite his misgivings, Scharf said the coalition is a “needed thing” undeserving of criticism by French.
Former board member Michelle Baca said she was unaware of concerns about Hancock and had resigned because she is moving away from the area.
Asked about the board member resignations, Hancock said the reasons for their leaving were “never explained thoroughly.”
Hancock said he overspent his grant funds because of a “big exposition of public relations,” which grew the coalition far quicker than he anticipated.
According to Hancock, any expenses not reimbursed by Ecology were covered by private donations to the organization, and Ecology renewed the coalition’s grant for another year, which May confirmed.
Four new board members have been appointed, he added.
“Those originally on the board all came on board because they were members of the affected community. People with their own polluted wells. And they are very, very good spokespeople for the problem,” he said. “But governance of a brand new nonprofit is a different thing than being members of an affected community. So I think this was just growing pains of a brand new organization of people who didn’t know each other very well.”
Hancock also said questions about his organization are meant to move the conversation away from French’s promise to provide a detailed account of his knowledge of PFAS.
“French promised us a seven-year summary two to three weeks from that meeting. That was in June. And I understood what he meant was there were a lot of people in on this, not just him. That there were a lot of people who knew about PFAS,” Hancock said. “I haven’t seen that report yet. And it’s nearly eight weeks now instead of three.”