Manufacturers and landowners clash at Georgia hearing over PFAS bill that would tax unused remediation settlement funds

Lawmakers heard sharply divided testimony on HB 12-12 on March 7, a bill that would aim to ensure settlement and judgment proceeds earmarked for PFAS remediation are spent on cleanup and would impose a 50% excise tax on remediation damages diverted from cleanup.

Sponsor and industry witnesses said the bill addresses a regulatory gap in Georgia and provides a strong financial incentive to remediate contaminated land. "If a landowner receives funds specifically intended for cleaning up PFAS contamination, but does not use those funds for cleanup, the bill treats that unused portion as a policy problem and not a private windfall," Britney Hull (S15), vice president of governmental affairs for the Georgia Association of Manufacturers, told the committee.

Hull and other proponents said the bill is targeted: it does not apply to compensatory awards for bodily injury or emotional distress, permits landowners three years to spend settlement funds on remediation or to place money in a remediation trust, and provides a credit that offsets the excise tax if the funds are used for cleanup.

Opponents said the bill misunderstands civil litigation practice and would amount to a punitive tax on victims and small jurisdictions. Tom Cosby (S17), an attorney representing affected landowners, said many clients would not have the time or resources to complete remediation within the proposed three-year window and that settlements often are the only practical avenue to secure cleanup. "If funds were received to address the problem, there's no provision in this bill for a fund within the state of Georgia to use it," Cosby said, warning the state could collect revenue without ensuring remediation occurs.

Attorneys representing hundreds of landowners and municipalities amplified the concern that the bill would tax gross settlement proceeds — which can include attorneys' fees and litigation expenses — leaving plaintiffs with reduced net recoveries. "This bill is a tax. It is a penalty. And it penalizes true victims of environmental contamination," said Nick Jackson (S18), who represents more than 1,100 Georgians in PFAS litigation.

Trial lawyers' representatives added that the mechanics of settlements — often lump-sum compromises that do not delineate categories of damages — make it impractical to tax only amounts earmarked for remediation. "When civil litigation is settled, that means by its very nature it's a compromise," Dan Snipes (S19) testified. "This bill starts by talking about the gross value of the settlement — that's the top line. That doesn't include what the plaintiffs would incur in expenses and fees, but the gross amount would be taxed."

Committee members raised possible fixes, including routing any excise revenue to the hazardous-waste trust and clarifying that municipal recipients must use funds for filtration and remediation. Sponsor counsel Greg Blunt (S3) told members Georgia currently lacks regulatory standards for PFAS cleanup and that the bill aims to steer settlement proceeds toward remediation where courts are the only current enforcement route.

There was no committee vote during the hearing; members indicated interest in further conversation and potential drafting changes to address concerns about fee treatment, municipal carve-outs and the practicalities of remediation timing.

What’s next: The committee did not vote; sponsors said the measure is a starting point for continued discussion and that language changes could be made to clarify how taxed revenue would be used and how settlements are characterized.

Reporting note: Quotations and attributions reflect speakers identified in committee testimony; where settlement mechanics were described as complex, those descriptions come from attorneys representing plaintiffs in PFAS cases.