Attorneys General Challenge $10.3B 3M Settlement Over Water Contamination
A group of twenty-two attorneys general has voiced objections to a proposed $10.3 billion settlement related to the contamination of US public drinking water systems with potentially harmful chemicals. The officials argue that the agreement, which was announced in June, does not give individual water suppliers sufficient time to determine the amount of money they would receive and whether it would cover the costs of removing the compounds collectively known as PFAS. They further state that the settlement may shift liability from 3M, the manufacturer, onto the providers.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong argues that the settlement fails to address the significant burden placed on public water systems by PFAS contamination. He expressed serious concerns about the agreement’s impact on the state’s sovereign rights and its distribution of future liability to water systems. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who leads the coalition of attorneys general, stated that the proposed settlement does not adequately account for the damage inflicted by 3M in various communities.
Manufactured by 3M, per- and polyfluorinated substances, or PFAS, are a class of chemicals used in nonstick and water- and grease-resistant products, including clothing, cookware, and some firefighting foams. PFAS, also known as forever chemicals due to their resistance to natural degradation, have been linked to liver and immune-system damage, as well as certain cancers. 3M has announced plans to cease production of these chemicals by the end of 2025.
Approximately 300 communities have filed lawsuits against 3M and other companies over water pollution caused by PFAS. In addition, several states, airports, firefighter training facilities, and private well owners have pending cases. The consolidated lawsuits are being heard in US District Court in Charleston, South Carolina, where the proposed settlement was submitted last month.
While 3M considers the settlement advantageous to US-based public water systems, the attorneys general argue that the deal does not provide sufficient compensation and raises questions about liability. The attorneys general also expressed concern that public water providers nationwide would be forced to participate in the settlement unless they individually opt out. Furthermore, they claim that the settlement could enable 3M to seek compensation from providers if they are faced with lawsuits related to PFAS illnesses in affected communities.
The attorneys general have not taken a stance on a separate $1.18 billion settlement aimed at resolving PFAS complaints against DuPont de Nemours Inc., as well as spinoffs Chemours Co. and Corteva Inc.
As the court considers the objections raised by the attorneys general, the proposed settlement’s future remains uncertain. The criticism from these officials highlights the complexities and challenges of resolving widespread water contamination issues caused by potentially dangerous chemicals like PFAS.
