Brewer, ATtorneys & Counselors
Successes
State of Minnesota v. 3m Company
The PFAS Lawsuit and Settlement
State of Minnesota v. 3M Company was a major environmental case involving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in Minnesota's East Metro. The state filed the lawsuit in 2010, alleging that PFAS released from 3M facilities and disposal sites had contaminated groundwater, drinking water, and natural resources.
The case concluded in 2018 with an $850 million court-approved settlement. After legal and administrative costs, approximately $720 million was designated for drinking-water projects and natural-resource restoration administered by state agencies.
Background on the State of Minnesota v. 3M Case
Minnesota filed the lawsuit on December 30, 2010, alleging that 3M's manufacture and disposal of PFAS had contaminated groundwater, drinking water, and natural resources in the eastern Twin Cities metropolitan area. The case was filed as Court File No. 27-CV-10-28862.
The state identified contamination associated with several 3M sites, including facilities in Cottage Grove, Oakdale, and Woodbury, as well as disposal areas such as the Washington County landfill.
Rather than seeking only monetary damages, Minnesota's claims focused heavily on restoring affected natural resources and drinking-water supplies.
Minnesota relied primarily on a natural-resource damages theory, arguing that PFAS releases had injured public resources and required restoration. The state also advanced claims involving negligence, public nuisance, and hazardous disposal.
To establish the connection between 3M's operations and the contamination, Minnesota used environmental sampling, hydrological studies, contaminant modeling, and expert testimony. The evidence addressed PFAS detections in wells and surface waters, the movement of contamination through groundwater, and the effects on public resources.
3M contested aspects of the state's allegations, including causation, the scope of the alleged contamination, and the appropriate remedies. The company also challenged aspects of the litigation's evidence and procedural posture, including efforts to coordinate the case with federal PFAS multidistrict litigation.
How did the Case Address PFAS Contamination?
The contamination was concentrated in the East Metro, including Cottage Grove, Oakdale, Woodbury, and surrounding communities. Investigations identified groundwater plumes associated with multiple sites and PFAS detections in municipal and private wells.
The affected area covered more than 150 square miles and included drinking-water supplies serving more than 140,000 Minnesotans. The scale of the contamination required a combination of centralized treatment systems and localized measures, including testing and filtration for individual wells.
What Did the $850 Million Settlement Require?
On February 20, 2018, Minnesota and 3M reached an $850 million court-approved settlement. State environmental agencies were responsible for using the settlement funds for projects designed to address the effects of PFAS contamination.
The settlement established two principal priorities:
Providing safe and sustainable drinking water
Restoring natural resources, including rivers and aquatic habitats
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administer the settlement funds and determine which projects receive grants.
How Were the Settlement Funds Used?
Settlement funds have supported PFAS testing and monitoring, drinking-water treatment systems, and natural-resource restoration projects.
Drinking-water projects have included construction and upgrades to PFAS treatment systems, as well as grants for well testing and remediation planning. Project decisions considered factors such as measured PFAS levels, public-health risks, the vulnerability of affected water systems, technical feasibility, and the number of people served.
Natural-resource projects have included habitat improvements, riverbank stabilization, and other efforts designed to reduce pollutant levels and restore ecological function. Projects generally include measurable goals for evaluating environmental improvements over time.
What Was the Impact of the Case?
The Minnesota case demonstrated how natural-resource claims can be used to pursue large-scale environmental restoration rather than direct payments to individual plaintiffs.
Its approach also became an influential model as other states, municipalities, and public water systems pursued PFAS-related claims. The Minnesota settlement showed how litigation could generate funding for drinking-water infrastructure and environmental restoration while avoiding the uncertainty and expense of a prolonged trial.
The case also involved significant procedural issues, including disputes over attorney conflicts and efforts to coordinate the litigation with federal PFAS multidistrict litigation. One notable dispute involved challenges concerning Covington & Burling's representation, which reached state appellate review.
What Was the Impact of the Case?
The 2018 settlement resolved the state's lawsuit, but the work did not end with the settlement. State agencies continue to allocate funds, develop and operate treatment systems, monitor water quality, and oversee natural-resource restoration projects.
Ongoing issues include project priorities, technical decisions, operating costs, and coordination with broader PFAS litigation. The settlement therefore created a long-term framework for addressing contamination rather than a single cleanup project or payment.
The State of Minnesota v. 3M Company case remains a significant example of environmental litigation involving PFAS and natural-resource damages, particularly for the way the settlement directed substantial resources toward drinking-water infrastructure and environmental restoration.