The Michigan Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision next year on a case that will help determine the rules on environmental cleanup of a class of “forever chemicals” in drinking water.
The court heard arguments Wednesday that are part of the state’s long-running battle with the manufacturer 3M over cleaning up PFAS contamination. PFAS are a family of chemicals used in things like clothing, cookware and firefighting foam. They are very slow to break down, which is why they're often called “forever chemicals,” and they've been linked to a variety of health problems.
The court will decide whether the state appropriately estimated the costs of cleaning up PFAS contamination. 3M argues the state did not follow the rules for adopting drinking water regulations. The court could force the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy to go back and re-calculate the costs to businesses of complying with state standards.
Nick Leonard directs the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, which filed a brief in the case. He said if the court rules against the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, the state’s cleanup law becomes unworkable.
“I think what you would get is EGLE coming up with inaccurate numbers that more or less satisfy the legal standards but don’t have much connection to reality,” he told Michigan Public Radio. “I think it’s really important to emphasize that if 3M is successful, it will mean basically tossing out these drinking water rules that are currently in effect and currently protecting the drinking water of Michigan residents.”
A key part of the state’s argument is that 3M does not have standing to challenge the regulations or the process for adopting them.
Mike Alaimo, the director of environmental affairs for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said the court’s ruling could have a sweeping effect on economic development.
“It could potentially have a really strong impact to do what we say we want to do – grow our population, build out our city cores, and redevelop and revitalize our urban centers,” he said.
Lower courts ruled against the state.
