What are 'forever chemicals'? 22 Attorney Generals oppose 3M's proposed $10.3B settlement over PFAS contaminating public drinking water
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: In a resolute display of bipartisan unity, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced California's firm opposition to a proposed class action settlement that falls short of adequately holding 3M accountable for contaminating the US' public drinking water supply with per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as "forever chemicals." A coalition of 22 attorney generals joined the effort to challenge the settlement, which water providers from across the country would be part of, regardless of whether they have sued 3M or tested for PFAS in their water systems.
What are 'forever chemicals'?
3M, one of the world's largest manufacturers of PFAS, has faced significant scrutiny for the environmental and health hazards posed by the chemicals, which are a class of over 4,700 compounds, infamous for their stability in the environment and resistance to degradation, leading to them persisting in soil and groundwater. The traits have earned them the moniker of "forever chemicals," with research showing that they pose serious health risks. Long-term exposure to PFAS has been linked to serious health issues, including various cancers, developmental defects, infertility, diabetes, and liver damage, to name a few. While some praise their use in nonstick cookware and waterproof or stain-resistant products, others fear their potential toxicity.
Notably, the use of PFAS by 3M and other manufacturers has led to numerous lawsuits across the country, with plaintiffs seeking funds to purify water and address health problems linked with exposure to the chemicals. Concerns have also been brought forward by firefighters and other first responders who believe that PFAS have somehow impacted their health. In response, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against 20 manufacturers of PFAS, including 3M, on November 10, 2022, aiming to hold the companies accountable for endangering public health, causing irreparable harm to the state's natural resources, and engaging in a widespread campaign to deceive the public about the dangers of PFAS.
"PFAS can cause serious health impacts — including various cancers, developmental defects, infertility, diabetes, and liver damage — and have been frequently detected in water systems nationwide. As a result, the stakes could not be higher," stated Bonta, adding, "While I appreciate the effort that went into it, the proposed settlement in its current form does not adequately account for the pernicious damage that 3M has done in so many of our communities. I have both a moral and legal obligation to voice my opposition, and I thank the court for considering our concerns."
Why is 3M's proposed settlement thought to be flawed?
The proposed class action settlement, which water providers would join if approved, involves the withdrawal of hundreds of lawsuits filed against 3M over its use of PFAS in a wide range of consumer products and firefighting foams. In return, 3M would allegedly pay $10.5 to $12.5 billion to the water providers. However, the coalition of attorney generals has raised significant concerns about the adequacy of the proposed settlement, as per the Office of the Attorney General California Department of Justice.
The coalition argues that the settlement would apply to nearly every public water provider in the US, regardless of whether they have sued 3M or tested for PFAS in their water, binding the suppliers unless they proactively opt out. Troublingly, they would have to make their decisions without knowing the actual compensation they would receive and, in many cases, before learning about the extent of contamination present in the water that they are supplying.
One of the most contentious aspects of the proposed settlement is the inclusion of an indemnification clause, which shifts liability from 3M to water suppliers bound by the resolution because they decided not to proactively opt out of it. For instance, if a cancer cluster develops in a PFAS-impacted community and the victims sue 3M, the multinational conglomerate would likely be able to seek compensation from the community’s public water supplier for any amount it owed to the victims. As such, the proposed settlement is worth far less than the advertised $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion.
California's commitment to addressing PFAS contamination
California has taken a proactive approach to address PFAS contamination. In 2021, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1200, which restricts the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of food packaging that contains PFAS and requires producers of cookware to disclose the presence of certain chemicals on the Internet or product label. Furthermore, the California Attorney General’s office continues to support further regulation and legislation to tackle contamination.
In May 2023, Attorney General Bonta joined a multistate comment letter supporting the US Environmental Protection Agency’s first-ever proposed regulation of PFAS in drinking water. Additionally, the office previously joined a multistate letter to the United States Senate supporting pending PFAS legislation, urging the EPA to regulate PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act and advocating rigorous PFAS standards for imported products under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Joining Attorney General Bonta in opposing the proposed settlement are attorney generals from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
