Companies to pay for lead paint removal
Paint companies agreed Wednesday to pay $305 million to 10 California cities and counties to remove lead paint, which can be especially dangerous to children, from tens of thousands of older homes.
The payment settles a lawsuit by the local governments against paint manufacturers ConAgra, NL Industries and SherwinWilliams. A state appeals court ruled in 2017 that the companies could be held responsible for marketing lead paint for decades while knowing of its health dangers. The companies appealed unsuccessfully to the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This is going to save the lives of thousands of California children in lowincome communities,” said Joseph Cotchett, a lawyer for the cities and counties.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the settlement gives local governments “the flexibility to best protect children from this pervasive environmental hazard.” He said the city’s share will be $21 million over seven years.
SherwinWilliams said it was pleased to resolve the case, but also said it should have been dismissed without any payments.
The California ruling conflicted with court decisions in other states that concluded paint manufacturers “should not be held retroactively liable for lawful conduct and truthful commercial speech decades after they took place,” the company said in a statement. It said enforcement of housing laws, not “wasteful lawsuits,” was the best way to protect children’s health.
The suit was filed by Santa Clara County in 2000 and joined later by San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego and the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura.
Lead poisoning from paint and contaminated dust can seriously harm children’s physical and mental development. The U.S. government banned sales of lead paint in 1978.
But Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg, who held a nonjury trial in the case, said a study between 2007 and 2010 found that at least 50,000 children in the 10 cities and counties had elevated levels of lead in their blood. San Francisco tested 10,300 children under age 6 and found that nearly 1,000 had high levels of lead.
The companies argued that their promotion of lead paint while it was still legal was an act of free speech. They also disputed the local governments’ contention that the presence of the paint in older homes could be considered a “public nuisance,” a harmful use of private property that states can penalize. Courts in seven other states have rejected publicnuisance claims in similar cases.
But in its 2017 ruling that eventually led to the settlement, the Sixth District Court of Appeal in San Jose said the companies could be held responsible for the consequences of promoting and selling a product whose dangers had long been known in their industry.
The three companies “as leaders in the paint industry were well aware in the early part of the 20th century that lead paint was poisonous,” Justice Nathan Mihara said in the 30 ruling.
The court said the companies must make payments to a state fund that would cover costs of stripping lead paint from doors, windows and floors. With homeowners’ consent, it would also pay for removal of dust and soil contaminated with lead.
The ruling would have limited the payments to homes built before 1951, when the companies stopped advertising lead paint, and also would have limited payouts from the state fund to four years, after which the remaining funds would be returned to the companies.
Lawyers for the cities and counties said Wednesday’s settlement does not contain those restrictions, and allows them to use the $305 million to remove lead paint from any affected homes and to aid children suffering from lead poisoning.
John Coté, a spokesman for Herrera, said public health inspectors would determine the areas most in need of assistance.
“This is going to save the lives of thousands of California children in lowincome communities.” Joseph Cotchett, attorney for the cities and counties