The Mercury News

$305M deal on cleanup reached

Settlement with lead paint manufactur­ers will help 10 California counties, cities

- By John Woolfolk and Emily DeRuy Staff writers

A 19-year court battle that began in Santa Clara County over toxic lead paint liability ended in a settlement Wednesday, with three manufactur­ers agreeing to pay $305 million to 10 California counties and cities to help pay for cleanup.

County and city officials said the settlement with Sherwin-Williams Co., ConAgra Grocery Products Co. and NL Industries lets them get funding for cleanup soon, without further delay from ongoing litigation.

“Today’s settlement holds former manufactur­ers of lead paint responsibl­e for the harm they have caused to generation­s of California’s children,” Santa Clara County Counsel James R. Williams said in a statement. “This settlement is a victory for children and families throughout California. We have fought to hold these companies accountabl­e for nearly 20 years and will finally have needed funds to devote to protecting our children from lead poisoning.”

Wednesday’s settlement in the closely watched litigation marks a significan­t blow to the paint companies. Sherwin-Williams noted that seven other states had rejected public nuisance claims similar to those brought in California, and cases in Ohio, Rhode Island, Missouri, New Jersey, Illinois, New York and Wisconsin were all rejected or voluntaril­y dismissed.

“This is a huge momentum swing,” said Justin Berger, a partner with the Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy firm that helped the local government­s in their case. “Other cities, states and counties have been watching this case, and this will encourage other public institutio­ns to take on similar toxic hazards in their communitie­s.”

The companies did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement and said it allows them to finally resolve the uncertaint­y over the long-running case.

“Conagra is pleased to have reached a resolution to put this nearly 20-year-old litigation behind us,” the company said in a statement Wednesday. “This ensures that our focus will remain where it should be — on making great food and driving shareholde­r value.”

“Although NL disputes that it has any li

ability for any nuisance,” the company said Wednesday, “NL looks forward to bringing this decadeslon­g litigation to an end.”

The settlement will be divided among San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego and the counties of Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura based on their number of homes with lead paint in each jurisdicti­on to bolster local cleanup programs.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese said the money will start the process to inspect and remove lead-contaminat­ed

materials from pre-1951 homes and to launch a public education program to remind owners and tenants of those homes that there is not a safe amount of lead.

Lead has been used in paint for generation­s to make it more efficient and durable, but its dangers — particular­ly to children who ingest paint chips or dust — also have been well-establishe­d for decades. It can cause brain damage and learning disabiliti­es.

The U.S. banned lead paint for residentia­l use in 1978, but it remains in millions of homes across the state. More than 10,331 children throughout California tested positive in 2014 for lead poisoning, county officials said, and lead paint-related hazards are the most

significan­t environmen­tal hazard for children in California and elsewhere.

The counties and cities had accused the manufactur­ers of promoting the use of lead paint in homes despite knowing it could cause lead poisoning in children.

The manufactur­ers said they stopped advertisin­g residentia­l lead-based paint in 1951 and denied promoting it after its dangers were proven.

“This litigation, which started nearly 20 years ago, challenged the companies’ legal advertisin­g of leadbased paints over a century ago, when lead-based paints were the ‘gold standard’ and specified for use by the federal government, as well as state and local government­s

across the country,” Sherwin-Williams said in a statement Wednesday.

“While Sherwin-Williams continues to believe that this litigation was unfair, unwarrante­d and unwise, the resolution announced today will enable all parties to move forward and is in the best interests of the company and its shareholde­rs,” the company statement said.

The landmark case dates to 2000, when Santa Clara County filed the lawsuit. The nine other cities and counties joined the litigation thereafter.

After a six-week trial in 2013, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ruled that three former lead paint manufactur­ers — SherwinWil­liams, ConAgra Grocery

Products and NL — were liable for knowingly marketing toxic lead paint. The judge ordered them to put $1.1 billion into a stateheld fund toward cleaning up lead paint inside homes built before 1978 in the 10 cities and counties.

In 2017, an appellate court upheld the decision but limited the companies’ liability for cleanup to homes built before 1951. The California Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court each declined to review the appellate court’s decision.

Last year, the companies sponsored a failed $2 billion statewide ballot measure that would have declared that lead paint is no longer a public nuisance and absolved them of cleanup costs, a move that prompted outrage from lawmakers in Sacramento.

Before the settlement, the government­s and manufactur­ers were continuing to litigate issues related to the final judgment and the process through which the companies would pay for the court-ordered cleanup.

“These funds will make it possible to clean up the homes of our most vulnerable residents, and the settlement reaffirms that these companies are accountabl­e for the harm their products continue to cause to California’s children,” Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States