As of March 2026, the national litigation involving aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) and PFAS contamination remains one of the largest environmental legal proceedings in the United States.
The multidistrict litigation includes more than twenty chemical manufacturers and industrial defendants. Claims in the case involve a wide range of environmental impacts, including drinking water contamination, groundwater remediation, wastewater treatment costs, property damage, and other expenses related to responding to PFAS pollution.
For public water systems across the country, the litigation has resulted in several major settlement programs designed to help utilities address the growing cost of monitoring and treating PFAS in drinking water supplies.
However, navigating these settlements can be complex. Each agreement contains detailed eligibility requirements, documentation rules, and court-ordered deadlines.
Understanding the Current PFAS Water System Settlements
To date, four major settlement agreements have been reached with manufacturers involved in the production or distribution of PFAS-containing firefighting foam.
The largest settlements affecting public water systems involve:
• 3M
• DuPont and related companies
• Tyco Fire Products
• BASF
These agreements were structured as opt-out class settlements, meaning public water systems were automatically included unless they formally chose to opt out by a specific court deadline.
Those opt-out deadlines have already passed. As a result, most public water systems identified within the settlement agreements have already released certain claims against the settling companies.
For many utilities, the remaining step is determining whether they will submit the documentation necessary to receive their share of the settlement funds.
Deadlines Have Already Passed for Some Settlements
The Tyco and BASF settlements established earlier deadlines for public water systems to submit claims.
Those deadlines have now passed, meaning utilities that did not apply for those programs will not receive funding from those agreements.
However, some opportunities remain open under the 3M and DuPont settlements, particularly for systems that qualify for Phase Two participation.
Because these settlements are governed by strict court schedules, water systems must carefully track eligibility requirements and submission deadlines.
Phase One and Phase Two Settlement Claims
The settlement programs for public drinking water systems are structured in phases.
Phase One payments began in 2025 and applied primarily to water systems that had already detected certain PFAS compounds above specified thresholds.
Public water systems that qualified for Phase One but did not submit the required documentation by the deadline are no longer eligible for those payments.
Phase Two claims remain open for certain systems. To qualify, utilities must submit required information such as:
- PFAS testing data
- baseline contamination documentation
- source water information
- operational data related to system flow rates
Meeting these requirements is essential for securing an allocation under the settlement program.
How Settlement Allocations Are Estimated
Settlement payments are not distributed evenly across all utilities. Instead, allocations are calculated using formulas based on system characteristics and contamination levels.
Two primary factors drive the allocation calculations:
PFAS concentration levels detected in source water
System flow rate, typically measured in gallons per minute
In general, water systems with higher PFAS levels and larger water production volumes may receive larger allocations.
Because the calculations are performed for each impacted water source, systems with multiple affected wells or surface water intakes may qualify for significantly higher total recovery amounts.
These estimates are illustrative only and do not guarantee any specific payment.
Why Claim Preparation Matters
Although public water systems are permitted to submit settlement claims without legal representation, the accuracy of the submission can significantly affect the final allocation.
Key factors that influence settlement recovery include:
- identifying all impacted water sources
- verifying system flow data
- calculating PFAS scores correctly
- documenting treatment or monitoring costs
Errors or incomplete documentation can result in lower allocations or delayed payments.
For utilities managing complex groundwater systems with multiple wells or treatment facilities, careful preparation of the submission materials is particularly important.
PFAS Litigation Still Includes Unresolved Claims
While billions of dollars have been committed through the current settlements, the agreements do not resolve every category of PFAS-related damages.
For example, many water utilities also operate facilities that may face additional costs associated with PFAS contamination, including:
- wastewater treatment systems
- sewer infrastructure
- landfill leachate management
- groundwater remediation projects
These areas may fall outside the scope of the existing public drinking water settlements.
In addition, many companies involved in the AFFF litigation have not yet reached settlement agreements, meaning additional legal developments remain possible.
Strategic Decisions for Water Systems in 2026
For many utilities, 2026 represents a critical period in the ongoing PFAS litigation.
Several factors are shaping the decisions water systems must make this year:
- Phase Two claim deadlines approaching
- additional settlements still under negotiation
- bankruptcy proceedings affecting certain defendants
- evolving federal drinking water standards for PFAS
Utilities that fail to meet required deadlines may lose eligibility for settlement allocations.
At the same time, water systems must continue evaluating whether additional legal claims or remediation planning may be necessary to address long-term contamination risks.
Looking Ahead
The 3M and DuPont settlements represent an important step toward addressing the growing financial burden PFAS contamination has placed on public water systems.
However, the broader PFAS litigation landscape is still developing. Many potential claims remain unresolved, and environmental monitoring continues to reveal additional contamination sources across the country.
For utilities managing groundwater systems, staying informed about settlement developments, regulatory changes, and contamination trends will remain essential in the years ahead.
CleanGroundwater will continue providing updates and guidance as new developments emerge in PFAS litigation and environmental policy.
