July 27 (UPI) — A coalition of nearly two dozen bipartisan attorneys general led by California’s top cop Rob Bonta are opposing a proposed multi-billion-dollar settlement reached by 3M to end hundreds of lawsuits that accuse the company of contaminating drinking water with so-called forever chemicals.
The settlement, which is pending court approval, is valued at at least $10.3 billion, and was reached last month between 3M and public water suppliers nationwide to resolve current and future claims concerning drinking water contamination of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which are known as PFAS, and are associated with various cancers.
These so-called forever chemicals are long lasting and ingredients found in everyday products from cookware to firefighting foam, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences.
The settlement also states that by agreeing to it, 3M is not admitting liability.
The 22 attorneys general on Wednesday filed a motion to intervene and a document of opposition with the courts arguing that individual water providers would be bound by the proposed settlement whether they have sued 3M or not and that the agreement shifts liabilities from the company to the utilities.
“PFAS can cause serious health impacts — including various forms of 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,” Bonta said in a statement.
“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.”
The documents specifically argue that for waiving their ability to sue 3M in the future, the water providers would receive a portion of the payout — an amount that is less than advertised due to provisions in the agreement that would see the water providers reimburse 3M for some costs.
They continue that the providers would also have to decide on opting out of the agreement without knowing how much of the agreed settlement they would receive and before knowing the degree to which their water supplies were contaminated.
Also an indemnification clause in the agreement would shift liability from 3M to water suppliers that decide against opting out, meaning if a cluster of cancer cases develops in their community and they sue, 3M could seek compensation from the water supplier.
“As such, the proposed settlement is worth far lass than the advertised $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion,” the attorneys general said in a statement.
The attorneys general in the documents filed Wednesday are asking the court to either deny the settlement or at a minimum modify its terms to address their concerns.
“I have both a moral and legal obligation to voice my opposition, and I thank the court for considering our concerns,” Bonta said.
