PFAS Settlements: Debunking The Myths And Revealing What's Really At Stake For Water Utilities

By Ken Sansone

When news first broke about the historic PFAS drinking water settlements with 3M and DuPont, many utility leaders assumed the payouts would be small — perhaps a few hundred or a few thousand dollars per system, like the typical class action check that barely covers postage. That assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.

In reality, these settlements represent one of the largest municipal recovery opportunities in U.S. history: up to more than $14 billion in total available funds. Some individual cities are already seeing recoveries in the tens of millions of dollars, and many more stand to follow if they act before the 2026 filing deadlines.

Yet misinformation, confusion, and missed deadlines could prevent some utilities from ever receiving a dollar. Here are five common misconceptions about the PFAS settlements — and what water systems need to know to make the most of this unprecedented funding opportunity.

Myth #1: “The settlements are just another class action. We’ll get $10 and move on.”

This isn’t your typical class action. The 3M and DuPont drinking water settlements were negotiated to directly compensate public water systems, not individuals, for the costs of PFAS contamination.

For many utilities, that means payments in the millions or tens of millions — funds that can offset treatment infrastructure, testing programs, and operating expenses. Early participants, like the City of Corona, California, have already received more than $20 million in initial settlement payments.

Each system’s recovery depends on its own PFAS data, system characteristics, and claim completeness — but dismissing the process as “small potatoes” could mean leaving millions on the table.

Myth #2: “We didn’t opt in, so we’re not eligible.”

In fact, the opposite is true. Unless a utility formally opted out of the settlements in 2023, it’s automatically included and eligible to submit claims.

That means thousands of public water systems across the country — large and small — are already covered. But inclusion alone doesn’t guarantee payment. Utilities must submit complete, verified claims by mid-2026 to actually receive funds.

Myth #3: “We don’t have PFAS detections, so this doesn’t apply to us.”

Phase 1 of the settlements covered systems with confirmed PFAS detections before June 2023. But Phase 2 extends eligibility to those that didn’t detect PFAS until after that date.

For many systems, ongoing testing — particularly under EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 5 (UCMR5) — will reveal new detections that trigger eligibility. Those systems should start preparing now: conducting testing, organizing documentation, and consulting with legal counsel to ensure claims are submitted correctly.

Myth #4: “We already spent money on treatment — it’s too late to recover.”

Not necessarily. The settlements include a Special Needs Fund designed specifically for utilities that have already invested in PFAS-related treatment or mitigation projects.

This fund provides an opportunity to recover additional compensation beyond the standard Action Fund payment — potentially reimbursing past expenses such as well shutdowns, new treatment facilities, supplemental water purchases, or new source development.

To qualify, utilities must document their PFAS-related expenditures and submit Special Needs Fund claims before August 1, 2026. For systems that have already taken action, this could mean millions more in recovery.

Myth #5: “We’ll have plenty of time to file our claim later.”

The timeline is tighter than it seems. Utilities seeking reimbursement for PFAS testing costs must complete all testing by the end of 2025 and submit reimbursement requests by January 1, 2026.

Action Fund claims are due on June 30, 2026 for the DuPont settlement and July 31, 2026 for the 3M settlement. Special Needs Fund claims follow just weeks later, on August 1, 2026.

Each step requires documentation, verification, and coordination across departments — a process that takes time. Starting now ensures claims are complete, accurate, and compliant before the deadlines hit.

The Opportunity — and the Risk

The PFAS settlements were designed to hold manufacturers accountable, not to replace or restrict future regulatory funding. For many municipalities, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recover funds that can stabilize budgets, fund capital improvements, or reduce rate pressure on customers.

But that opportunity won’t last. Once deadlines pass, systems that failed to act will permanently lose eligibility — not just for settlement funds, but for future litigation related to PFAS contamination from these defendants.

The first wave of payments demonstrates the scale of what’s possible when utilities act decisively. The next wave depends on who’s prepared.

Ken Sansone is a partner at SL Environmental Law Group, a firm representing hundreds of water utilities nationwide in contamination litigation and settlement recovery. SL Environmental has secured hundreds of millions of dollars in recoveries for public water providers impacted by PFAS and other contaminants.