In Minnesota, a bill was recently passed that addresses recovery for exposure to hazardous substances in terms of statutory liability mechanisms rather than an administrative fund remedy.¹ There is, however, a suggestion of a fund remedy in the bill. I would like to give you a little bit of the background to the legislative debates that preceded passage of the bill. Late in 1980, after the federal Superfund was passed, Sen. Gene Merriam, Chairman of the state's Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, asked his staff to draft a bill to fill in some of the holes left in the federal Superfund law. As an offhand remark, the staffer asked, "Do you want me to include something on personal injury?" And the senator said, "Sure." We have been battling for the last three years because of that brief exchange.

The bill was introduced in 1981. Brief hearings were held that year. In 1982, the bill went through four Committees of the House, plus additional subcommittee hearings, four Committees in the Senate, was passed by both houses, went to conference, came back, was passed again by both bodies, and was vetoed by the governor in March 1982. His veto was primarily rooted in his doubt about the constitutionality of retroactive liability.