Sometimes, making a statement is necessary. When common sense and logic aren’t universally held, we must create teachable moments. In the legislative world, that often means introducing a bill knowing it won’t become law—not to pass it, but to make a point. And sometimes, you get lucky: the attention sparks real change.
Senator Judy Seeberger has been a champion in the fight against PFAS since taking office. In 2023, she carried the firefighting foam portion of the PFAS Prevention Package and later became the chief author of what is now Amara’s Law, the world’s most comprehensive PFAS ban. But passing Amara’s Law was never the finish line. We continue working to defend it against attacks while strategizing on the next steps to protect Minnesotans.
Senator Seeberger and the Strande Family (Dana, Michael, and Nora) at the Minnesota Capitol after Amara's Law passed the House Floor. With Clean Water Action Minneosta Director Avonna Starck and Senator Tou Xiong
Now, Senator Seeberger is making another bold statement. Senate File 2129 is a bipartisan effort to tackle the root cause of the PFAS crisis: polluters. This bill seeks to impose a 50% tax on the gross revenue of PFAS-containing products manufactured in Minnesota and sold to distributors. The revenue would fund PFAS cleanup across the state. In short: this is a polluter-pay bill.
I sort of glossed over the fact that this is a bipartisan effort above. This is an important thing to note: contaminated water and the illnesses related to exposure don’t care how you vote, where you live, how much money you make, or anything else about how you live your life. We must stop thinking about this issue as left versus right; this is a universal issue that impacts all of us. While we are a nonpartisan organization, we aren’t blind—we are working hard to ensure that all decision makers, regardless of political party, understand what is at stake for Minnesota families.
So - who should pay?
I’ve long argued that hardworking Minnesotans shouldn’t be footing the bill for PFAS cleanup. Over the next 20 years, the state faces tens of billions of dollars in cleanup costs. Imagine what we could do with that money instead: fully fund our schools, repair infrastructure, or ensure no one goes bankrupt from a medical emergency.
I guest-taught a class a few weeks ago; I asked the students to consider that if corporations are people, should we expect corporations to act ethically just as we expect of ourselves? I didn’t ask if they DO act ethically, or if they WANT to act ethically, I asked if they SHOULD act ethically. The class really chewed on those questions. The students knew they WANTED companies to behave ethically, though many doubted that they ever would. I’ll challenge you the same way I challenged them. Be diligent, do your research, and spend your dollars accordingly. We’re seeing shopping strikes take place across the country right now. It’s clear that your dollars have power. Use that power accordingly.
But instead of paying for their mess, multi-billion-dollar industries are spending massive sums to influence Minnesota lawmakers. Since we began working on Amara’s Law in 2023, out-of-state lobbyists have flown in to spread misinformation and pressure legislators. Some have even warned lawmakers that supporting Amara’s Law could cost them their seats. Dark money groups sent misleading campaign literature, in an attempt to sway the 2024 elections to defeat legislators who have acted to stop the further spread of PFAS. And now, industry players are deliberately dragging their feet on implementation, hoping to claim the law is unworkable. The Cookware Sustainability Alliance even sued Minnesota, attempting to exempt cookware from Amara’s Law—fortunately, the courts saw through their charade.
That said, let’s be clear: this is not an attack on business. My husband owns a small business—I know firsthand how challenging it is to run one. Yet, in two separate meetings on the same day, a legislator posited the question of why environmentalists “hate business.” That couldn’t be further from the truth. What we oppose are unethical, irresponsible business practices.
Businesses can be profitable without PFAS. Consumers don’t want to buy toxic products for themselves or their families. And transitioning to safer alternatives isn’t just necessary, it’s an opportunity. Innovation creates jobs, strengthens communities, and can be highly profitable. (Perhaps operating a business in an ethical way can be profitable!)
The most infuriating part of this entire mess? For me, it has to be that the chemical industry has known since the 1950s that PFAS were toxic. Internal documents prove they understood the risks but continued using PFAS anyway. Imagine knowing someone has a severe peanut allergy and deliberately giving them peanut butter cookies—it’s unthinkable, right? That level of disregard for human health is astounding.
Rather than taking responsibility, the chemical industry is doubling down, spending millions to protect their profits instead of investing in safer alternatives. Imagine the progress we could make if they redirected that money toward innovation instead of obstruction.
We’re thrilled that Senator Seeberger’s bill will be heard on March 20 at 8:30 AM. (Okay, I don’t love 8:30 AM start times, but this will be worth it.) This is an opportunity for legislators, businesses, and the community to engage in essential conversation.
Our message is simple:
We are open to partnership, but we are unwavering in our belief that polluters should pay. Only when this hits their bottom line will they be motivated to change.
Let’s make sure they hear us loud and clear.
