Cities across the state are suing a group of chemical producers for allegedly bilking taxpayers out of millions by inflating the price of a compound needed for water treatment.
Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth and Rochester are among the cities seeking to recoup their money after a former chemical company executive in New Jersey admitted this fall to his role in a price-fixing scheme spanning more than a decade. More than 30 related lawsuits have been filed nationally, seven of them in Minnesota.
The cases center on the price of liquid aluminum sulfate, known as alum, which is used by local governments to purify drinking water — as well as clean wastewater and lakes. It is also used by pulp and paper companies. Some cities have seen upward of threefold increases in alum prices since the late 1990s, when the alleged price fixing began.
"If you really do the economics, the price should be flat or slowly declining," said Duluth City Attorney Gunnar Johnson. "And that's not what we were seeing."
Minneapolis, which produces 57 million gallons of clean drinking water per day, uses alum more than all but one other chemical in its treatment process. The city pays about $900,000 a year for it, up from $200,000 to $300,000 in the late 1990s, according to attorneys with Lockridge Grindal Nauen, the firm that has been filing the local lawsuits.
Precisely how much cities were overcharged remains unclear, pending a more thorough economic analysis as the cases move forward, attorneys said. But based on experiences in other similar cases, Joe Bruckner of Lockridge Grindal Nauen noted that "people and companies don't enter into illegal price fixing conspiracies unless they think there's something pretty substantial to be gained by doing so."
Price increases
The lawsuits are seeking class action status. They target six primary producers of alum, saying they colluded to take advantage of the municipal bidding process, which favors low bidders. The companies allegedly eliminated competition by agreeing not to pursue each other's historical customers. The lawsuit said they accomplished it by discussing the price of bids intended to win contracts, then ensuring they were selected by having other companies submit bids at much higher prices.
"Each one of these instances was in furtherance of an overall agreement to keep that price up and to increase that price to all customers across the board across the country," Bruckner said.