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

By Ken Sansone and Kyla Tengdin

When news first broke about the historic PFAS drinking water settlements with 3M and DuPont, many utility leaders assumed the payouts would be small — a few hundred or a few thousand dollars per system, and not worth the time and paperwork required to file a claim. In reality, these settlements represent one of the largest recovery opportunities for environmental contamination in U.S. history: approximately $14 billion in total available funds. Many cities are already recovering millions of dollars each, and more stand to join them if they act before the 2026 filing deadlines.

Misinformation and confusion could prevent some utilities from benefitting from the aqueous film-forming foam multidistrict litigation (AFFF MDL) settlements. Here are five common myths about the AFFF MDL PFAS settlements and how public water systems can make the most of this unprecedented funding opportunity.

Myth #1: “The settlements are just another class action. The payout won’t be worth the time and energy to file a claim.”

The truth: The AFFF MDL isn’t a typical class action lawsuit. The 3M and DuPont drinking water settlements were negotiated to provide real compensation to public water systems for the costs of PFAS contamination.

Many utilities who were eligible for Phase One of the 3M and DuPont settlements are now receiving payments in the many millions of dollars each that can be used to offset the expenses of PFAS treatment infrastructure, testing programs, and operating expenses. For example, the City of Corona, CA, recently received its first settlement payment, with additional disbursements to be delivered for an anticipated total recovery of more than $21 million from 3M alone — not counting funds that Corona expects to recover from settlements with other PFAS manufacturers. The City of Sacramento, CA, obtained an award of approximately $10.4 million and has preserved its rights to make additional claims if PFAS is detected in additional wells or at higher concentrations in the future — another important benefit of the settlements for those who timely and properly submit claims.

Each system’s recovery depends on its own PFAS levels, water system characteristics, and other data, but dismissing the process as “small potatoes” could mean walking away from millions of dollars.

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

The truth: The opposite is true. Unless a water system formally opted out of the settlements back in 2023 by submitting the necessary paperwork to the court, it’s automatically included in the settlements and eligible to submit claims. But being included alone isn’t enough to reap the rewards payment. Eligible utilities must submit complete, documented, and verified claims by the summer 2026 deadlines to receive funds.

Deadlines for Phase One water systems — those that detected PFAS in their source water before June 2023 — have passed, but Phase Two water systems — those who did not have their first PFAS detection until after June 2023 — still have time to conduct testing and submit a claim before the 2026 deadlines.

Phase Two systems are those that did not detect any PFAS, at any concentration, anywhere in their water supplies until after June 22, 2023, and serve a population of more than 3,300 people or were otherwise required to test for PFAS under the U.S. EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 5 (UCMR-5). (If state law required PFAS testing, community systems of any size are eligible under the DuPont settlement, but not the 3M settlement.)  

To start a claim, water systems must complete PFAS testing at each wellhead or surface water intake. Data from the UCMR-5 program may or may not meet claim requirements, so additional testing may be necessary. Detailed information on PFAS-impacted sources must be submitted to the claims administrator no later than June 30, 2026, for the DuPont settlement and July 31, 2026, for the 3M settlement. The administrator will then make an award for each impacted source based on its historically highest levels of PFAS and the size of the source as measured by its capacity and history of production. These are known as “Action Fund” awards.

Municipalities may also apply for reimbursement of PFAS-related costs incurred before August 1, 2026, through the Special Needs Funds, for eligible expenses such as designing or building treatment facilities, purchasing supplemental water, or drilling new wells to replace contaminated ones. These Special Needs Funds are an additional source of support from the settlements that can reimburse past PFAS response costs. The chief intent of these funds is to provide an extra benefit to systems that have already taken action to remove PFAS from their drinking water supplies.

Myth #3: “We hadn’t yet detected PFAS when the settlements were announced, so we aren’t eligible.”

The truth: Detecting PFAS for the first time after the settlements were announced does not affect eligibility — it just puts a water system into Phase Two. Billions of dollars are still available for Phase Two water systems.

The settlements divided water systems into phases based on the reality that many systems (particularly those in states without their own PFAS regulations) had done no testing at all for PFAS before June 2023 but that required testing under UCMR-5 would produce new detections by systems now forced to deal with PFAS. Those systems should actively engage now: conducting comprehensive and qualifying testing, organizing documentation and consulting with legal counsel to ensure claims are submitted correctly and on time. If you act quickly enough, settlement funds are even available to cover these testing costs.

Myth #4: “We don’t have PFAS above the federal MCLs, so we aren’t eligible.”

The truth: although the settlements provide greater compensation to sources that have PFAS levels exceeding the federal maximum contaminant levels, they provide some compensation for every source that has ever had a PFAS detection at any level — even if it’s below the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). In addition, in determining the size of awards, the settlements use the historically highest levels of PFAS ever recorded in a source, meaning that, even if a source is non-detect for PFAS now, it will be compensated based on its past detections of PFAS. This aspect of the allocation formula can result in substantial payouts, even for sources with low PFAS concentrations, especially if those sources are high-volume water producers (e.g., a surface water treatment plant).

Not only will sources that have low-level PFAS detections receive compensation under the settlements, but they will also be eligible to receive additional compensation if, during the next five years, they have a detection of PFAS that exceeds the MCL. These “supplemental claims” are also available for sources that have always been non-detect for PFAS but have a detection at some time during the next five years. To preserve eligibility for these claims, however, utilities must make sure that they conduct appropriate testing and submit the results by the summer 2025 deadlines.

Myth #5: “We’ll have plenty of time to deal with this later.”

The truth: the settlements will be your only opportunity to receive any compensation from 3M and DuPont for PFAS in your drinking water; unless you opted, you can no longer sue those manufacturers, even if PFAS problems in your water don’t fully become clear until years from now. The timeline to submit claims under the settlements grows tighter by the day. Phase One claims deadlines have passed, and Phase Two will conclude in mid-2026 — giving Phase Two water systems just months to complete their testing and submit claims documentation. This timeline is entirely doable, but utilities need to get started now.

Phase Two Water Systems Claims Deadlines

• January 1, 2026 – Testing Cost Reimbursement Claims (failing to meet this deadline does not eliminate eligibility for Action Funds or Special Needs Funds claims — only the eligibility to recover testing costs)
• June 30, 2026 – Action Funds Claims for DuPont Settlement
• July 31, 2026 – Action Funds Claims for 3M Settlement
• August 1, 2026 – Special Needs Funds Claims for Both DuPont and 3M Settlements

Each step requires documentation, verification, and coordination across departments, a process that takes time. Starting now and utilizing the services of expert legal assistance ensures claims are complete and accurate before the deadlines drop.

Last Chance To Take Advantage Of A Golden Opportunity

The PFAS settlements were designed to make manufacturers pay their fair share of PFAS costs, not to replace or restrict future federal or state funding for PFAS projects. For many municipalities, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recover funds that can stabilize budgets, fund capital improvements, and reduce rate pressure on customers.

But this opportunity won’t last. Once deadlines pass, systems that failed to act will permanently lose eligibility for millions in settlement funds and for future litigation related to PFAS contamination from these defendants.

For utilities that act decisively, the reward is significant funding for PFAS remediation. The first wave of payments demonstrates the scale of what’s possible; the next wave will reveal who has the strategic inclination to claim their share of recovery from manufacturers that caused PFAS contamination in the first place.

Ken Sansone is senior 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.

Kyla Tengdin is education and outreach manager at SL Environmental Law Group. With a background in water education, nonprofit communications, and event planning, Tengdin is dedicated to helping water systems learn more about emerging contaminants and evolving regulations.