Skip to content

Attorney General opposes 3M settlement

The attorneys general urge for the settlement to be rejected
pfas_water_testing_ag-desk
Madison, Wis., resident Brad Horn collects a water sample to test for PFAS in Madison, Wis., on Aug. 8, 2022. His family collected the water that came out of their AquaRain brand water filter and sent the water to the Regional Water Authority in Connecticut for testing. The results came back with no detectable levels of PFAS in 17 categories and one result of “below Minimum Reporting Level but greater than the Method Detection Limit” for PFHxS. (Coburn Dukehart / Wisconsin Watch)

Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser joined 22 attorneys general to urge a federal court to reject 3M’s proposed settlement.

The hundreds of lawsuits were filed against 3M for its use of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances which are commonly referred to as “PFAS” or toxic “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally in the environment. PFAS have been linked to some health problems including some cancers and liver and immune system damage.

The attorneys general urge for the settlement to be rejected stating that the proposed $10.5 to $12.5 billion 3M would pay out would not “adequately hold accountable the 3M Company for contaminating Americans’ drinking water supply,” a news release from Weiser’s office states. 

 ”Coloradans now suffer degraded water quality and public health injuries on account of the actions of 3M and other companies who manufactured and marketed PFAS,” Weiser said. “By taking action today, we are standing up for our citizens and fighting for an adequate and appropriate resolution of the ongoing litigation.”

The proposed settlement would apply to water providers across the U.S. regardless of whether they tested for PFAS or were part of the suit. Water providers would be bound to the settlement without knowing the full extent of the contamination of its water supply. The settlement offers an opt-out, however, water districts would not know how much they might receive if they stayed in.

The settlement also includes an indemnification clause that would shift the liability from 3M to water providers in the future. This clause would likely mean 3M could seek compensation from the community’s water supplier in the event it was sued.