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Objections Withdrawn, but Concerns Remain

3M’s chief legal affairs officer, Kevin Rhodes, announced that the ‌attorneys general had withdrawn their objections after the company‌ addressed their concerns.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.