3M’s settlement for ‘forever chemicals’ progresses, but some AGs dissatisfied with payout.
A $10-12 Billion Public Water Contamination Settlement Advances as State Attorneys General Drop Objections
The long-awaited -12 billion public water contamination settlement with manufacturing giant 3M has taken a significant step forward after objections from 22 state attorneys general were dropped. This landmark deal, which still requires approval from a U.S. district court, follows a lawsuit against 3M for its role in water contamination caused by “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, which have been linked to various illnesses.
The Impact of PFAS
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are synthetic chemicals that are resistant to oil and water, as well as heat. They are commonly used in nonstick surfaces and as linings in food packaging. However, their presence in water sources has raised concerns due to their potential health risks.
A Bipartisan Intervention
A bipartisan group of attorneys general, led by Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta, intervened in 3M’s initial settlement proposal. They raised concerns about liability and payout issues. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison specifically highlighted a clause that shifted PFAS liability from 3M to public water utilities, as well as the lack of clarity regarding settlement funding for those utilities.
“Corporate polluters like 3M should not be able to evade responsibility for contaminating our waters with toxic ‘forever chemicals’ that have caused devastating health problems,” stated Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was involved in the negotiations.
Republican attorneys general, including Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee, Dave Yost of Ohio, John Formella of New Hampshire, and Texas provisional Attorney General Angela Colmenero, were also part of the action.
Objections Withdrawn, but Concerns Remain
3M’s chief legal affairs officer, Kevin Rhodes, announced that the attorneys general had withdrawn their objections after the company addressed their concerns. He stated, “We’re now in a position where the parties believe the settlement is fair for the class members, and the overall agreement is now before the court for preliminary approval.”
However, despite the progress, five attorneys general, led by Bonta, filed a brief with the court expressing concerns about the amount of money 3M would pay. They argued that the $10-12 billion figure was insufficient to cover the extensive damage caused by PFAS pollution.
“3M declined to pay an amount that accurately reflects the extraordinary damage it has caused to public drinking water systems, and it declined to provide water suppliers the money to remediate that damage more quickly,” stated Bonta in a press release.
Joining Bonta in this effort were four Democratic colleagues: Kristin Mayes of Arizona, Brian Schwalb of the District of Columbia, Michelle Henry of Pennsylvania, and Josh Kaul of Wisconsin.
Regulatory Actions and Future Implications
These legal actions coincide with ongoing efforts by state and federal regulators to implement stricter monitoring and filtration requirements for PFAS chemicals in public water supplies. Additionally, there are proposals to ban products containing these harmful substances.
As the settlement progresses through the court system, the outcome will have significant implications for holding corporations accountable for environmental damage and ensuring the safety of public water sources.
Click here to read more from The Washington Examiner.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...