Public water systems across the United States are entering a critical phase of the largest drinking water settlements in history. The nationwide settlements with 3M and DuPont related to PFAS contamination create a once in a generation opportunity for water systems to recover testing costs, fund treatment upgrades, and offset compliance expenses driven by new EPA drinking water standards.
However, these settlements are not automatic grants. They are structured claims programs with strict deadlines, technical requirements, and data driven allocation formulas. As Phase Two approaches, water systems that act early and strategically are best positioned to protect eligibility and maximize potential settlement recovery.
This article explains how the 3M and DuPont public water settlements work, outlines the key Phase Two deadlines, describes the potential settlement amounts water systems may receive, and concludes with a guide action.
Overview of the 3M and DuPont Public Water Settlements
The 3M Public Water Provider Settlement is valued at approximately $10.5 to $12.5 billion depending on participation and payment timing. The DuPont settlement, which includes Chemours and Corteva, adds an additional $1.185 billion dedicated to public water systems. Together, these settlements are intended to fund PFAS related drinking water response costs, including testing, treatment, engineering, and compliance driven infrastructure upgrades. However, the settlement money is unrestricted and may be spent as needed.
Importantly, settlement funds are allocated based on objective criteria. The two most significant factors are PFAS concentration levels and system flow rates. These factors are combined to calculate what the settlements refer to as a PFAS Score and an Adjusted Flow Rate.
Another key concept is that settlement allocations are calculated per impacted water source, not simply per water system. This means that each qualifying groundwater well or surface water intake may generate its own allocation. As a result, systems with multiple impacted sources may be eligible for substantially larger recoveries than similarly sized systems with only one impacted source. Importantly, it also means water systems can receive settlement payments even if they have very low levels or no detectable levels of PFAS in the finished water that is sold to customers.
This Class Settlement Applies Automatically to Most Public Water Systems
An important and often misunderstood aspect of the 3M and DuPont public drinking water settlements is that they are structured as “opt out” class actions.
In practical terms, this means that eligible public water systems were automatically included in the settlements unless they affirmatively filed a timely opt out with the court or the settlement administrator. As a result, most public water systems in the United States are already participating in the settlements, even if they have not yet submitted a claim or filed a lawsuit.
Because these settlements are “opt out” class actions, a water system that did not opt out by the Court ordered deadlines has already settled and released its claims. This includes all claims a PWS may have now and in the future against 3M and DuPont for PFAS related drinking water impacts covered by the settlements. In exchange for that release, the system is entitled to seek a settlement allocation, provided it complies with the settlement claims process and deadlines.
Accordingly, Phase Two is not about deciding whether to participate. Instead, Phase Two is about preserving and collecting settlement funds that are already owed under the terms of the class settlements. Water systems that fail to submit required testing, documentation, and claims risk forfeiting their allocation even though they have already released their legal claims.
The class notices make clear that failure to submit a claim does not undo the release. Rather, it may result in the loss of settlement payments. For this reason, municipalities and water managers should view Phase Two deadlines as asset protection deadlines, not litigation decisions. The release has already occurred for systems that did not opt out. The remaining question is whether the system will take the steps necessary to secure the settlement funds allocated in exchange for that release.
Understanding Phase Two and Why It Matters Now
Phase One of the settlements focused primarily on systems with existing qualifying PFAS detections. Phase Two expands eligibility and provides additional opportunities for systems that did not fully participate in Phase One or that need to complete baseline testing.
Phase Two is especially important because it includes multiple funding pathways, including testing reimbursement, Action Fund claims, Special Needs Fund claims, and long-term supplemental funding. Each pathway has its own deadline and documentation requirements.
Some systems mistakenly believe they can wait. The settlement requires action. As explained in the preceding section, most drinking water systems have settled with 3M and DuPont by taking no action. However, to receive the payments owed in exchange for releasing the settling defendants, qualifying water systems must file claims by the deadlines. Testing should be scheduled early, flow data must be verified, out of pocket expenses must be gathered, and accurate claims filing is essential to avoid missed opportunities. Official deadlines and claim submissions must always be verified through the settlement administrator.
Phase Two Settlement Timeline for Public Water Systems
March 31, 2026 Testing Cost Reimbursement Deadline
Phase Two testing compensation claims must be submitted by this date. This deadline governs reimbursement for eligible PFAS testing costs already incurred. This deadline was recently extended by the Court.
July 1, 2026 Baseline Testing Deadline
Baseline PFAS testing must be completed by this date. Baseline testing establishes Phase Two eligibility and supplies the data used to calculate settlement allocations.
July 31, 2026 Action Fund Deadline
Phase Two Action Fund claims must be submitted by this date. This is the primary claims deadline for most public water systems and is the submission that determines settlement allocation amounts. Missing this deadline may result in forfeiture of the system’s settlement allocation, even though the system has already released its claims.
August 1, 2026 Special Needs Fund
Special Needs Fund claims must be submitted by this date. This funding category is reserved for systems that have paid certain costs responding to PFAS. Because this fund is limited, complete and well documented submissions are essential. Examples include paying for filtration of PFAS or drilling a new water well.
December 31, 2030 Supplemental Fund
Supplemental Fund claims may be submitted through this date. This long-term funding category allows systems to seek reimbursement for qualifying PFAS related costs incurred after initial claims, including treatment upgrades and compliance driven expenses. You must comply with the baseline testing deadline to participate in this fund.
How Much Money Could a Public Water System Receive?
The best publicly available tool for estimating potential settlement recovery is the Settlement Estimated Allocation Range Table published for each settlement. These tables are designed for illustration purposes only and do not guarantee any specific payment. Nevertheless, they provide valuable insight into how the allocation formulas work.
For the 3M settlement, estimated allocations per impacted water source range from several hundred thousand dollars to tens of millions of dollars depending on PFAS Score and Adjusted Flow Rate. For example, a single impacted source with a PFAS Score of 100 and an Adjusted Flow Rate of 10,000 gallons per minute corresponds to an estimated allocation of just over $5 million. At higher flow rates and higher PFAS scores, estimated allocations can exceed $20 million per impacted source. Even systems with very low PFAS scores of 1-2 PPT can potentially receive millions of dollars.
The DuPont settlement follows a similar structure but reflects a smaller overall fund. Even so, estimated allocations per impacted source commonly range from several hundred thousand dollars to several million dollars.
Because these estimates are calculated per impacted source, systems with multiple impacted wells or intakes may see aggregate allocations that are substantially higher than initial expectations. This underscores the importance of accurately inventorying water sources and properly documenting flow and testing data.
Final takeaway for municipalities and water systems
The 3M and DuPont public water settlements represent one of the most significant funding opportunities ever available to public water systems. At the same time, Phase Two is complex, deadline driven, and unforgiving of inaction.
Water systems that begin testing early, document sources carefully, and align internal teams around a clear timeline are best positioned to maximize recovery. Those that wait risk forfeiting millions of dollars in settlement funds intended to protect public drinking water.
For municipalities seeking guidance, resources like CleanGroundwater and experienced counsel such as Stag Liuzza can help water systems document and file settlement claims. Ultimately, the systems that act now will be the best equipped to meet both regulatory demands and long-term infrastructure needs.
