The PFAS MDL settlement is a group of court-approved agreements in MDL 2873 that together direct more than $14 billion to public water systems contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Four chemical manufacturers — 3M, the DuPont group, Tyco Fire Products, and BASF — have agreed to fund testing, treatment, and infrastructure for utilities that detected PFAS in their drinking water. If your system is a class member, the Phase 2 claim deadlines fall between March and August 2026, and missing them forfeits both the money and the right to sue these companies later.
The Four Settlements and What They Total
3M agreed to pay between $10.5 billion and $12.5 billion in nominal payments over thirteen years, with a present value of roughly $10.3 billion. The payments run through 2036 on a variable annual schedule.13M Company. 3M Settlement with Public Water Suppliers to Address PFAS in Drinking Water Receives Final Court Approval
DuPont, along with its spin-off companies Chemours and Corteva, reached a combined settlement of $1.185 billion. Chemours is responsible for about $592 million, DuPont for roughly $400 million, and Corteva for approximately $193 million.2DuPont. Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva Reach Comprehensive PFAS Settlement with US Water Systems
Two additional defendants received final court approval in November 2024: Tyco Fire Products at $750 million and BASF Corporation at $315.5 million. Together with the 3M and DuPont agreements, the total settlement pool exceeds $14.7 billion.
Who Qualifies
Only public water systems qualify. Private well owners, individual homeowners, and people seeking compensation for PFAS-related health problems fall outside these agreements. The broader MDL does include personal injury claims, but those cases are on a separate litigation track with no class settlement in place.3United States District Court District of South Carolina. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation
Eligible systems fall into two groups based on when they detected contamination:
- Phase 1 covers systems that had at least one positive PFAS test result on or before June 22, 2023. These systems have documented contamination and were the first to file claims.
- Phase 2 covers systems that either did not detect PFAS until after June 22, 2023, or had not yet completed testing by that date. For the 3M settlement, Phase 2 systems must also serve more than 3,300 people according to the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System.4PFAS Water Settlement. Frequently Asked Questions (3M) – Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation
That 3,300-person threshold can catch smaller utilities off guard. A system serving 2,500 residents could have confirmed contamination and still be ineligible for 3M Phase 2 funds. The DuPont settlement does not impose the same population minimum, so smaller systems may still qualify there.
The 2026 Phase 2 Claim Deadlines
Three Phase 2 deadlines fall in 2026. Missing any of them forfeits that category of funding permanently.
- March 31, 2026 is the deadline for Phase 2 Testing Claims under both the 3M and DuPont settlements. This covers reimbursement for eligible PFAS testing costs.
- July 31, 2026 is the deadline for Phase 2 Action Fund Claims under both settlements. This is the main submission window for remediation and treatment funding.
- Approximately August 1, 2026 is the deadline for Phase 2 Special Needs Fund Claims. The Special Needs form must be submitted within 45 days of filing the Action Fund claim.5PFAS Water Settlement. Special Needs Claims Form
Water systems participating in Phase 2 of the 3M settlement must have completed PFAS testing of all water sources before filing. Turnaround times for EPA Method 533 or 537.1 analyses can stretch several weeks.6Environmental Protection Agency. EPA PFAS Drinking Water Laboratory Methods Ordering lab work in June for a July 31 deadline is a gamble most systems should not take.
What Class Members Give Up by Doing Nothing
Every system that did not formally opt out of the settlement class is bound by its terms, whether or not it files a claim. The release of claims takes effect against all class members who stayed in the class, regardless of whether they ever submit paperwork or receive a dollar.4PFAS Water Settlement. Frequently Asked Questions (3M) – Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation
A water system that takes no action gets the worst possible outcome: no settlement money and no ability to sue the settling defendant independently for PFAS-related drinking water claims. The opt-out deadline has already passed, so the remaining choice is filing a claim or walking away empty-handed while still being bound by the release.
The release only covers drinking water contamination claims against the specific settling defendant. Claims related to PFAS in soil, wastewater, or biosolids are not covered. A municipality with PFAS contamination at an airport, fire training facility, or landfill can still pursue those claims separately. The 3M settlement also does not affect a system’s ability to pursue claims against DuPont, Tyco, BASF, or other defendants, and vice versa.
How Payouts Are Calculated
Allocation is calculated per water source, not per water system. A utility operating six contaminated wells receives a separate calculation for each well, and the results add together. Two technical inputs drive the math.
Adjusted flow rates come from the three highest annual average flow rates in a ten-year window (2013 through 2022), averaged, and then averaged again with the verified maximum flow rate of the affected source. The goal is a realistic picture of how much water the source actually handles.
PFAS scores reflect contamination severity. The score equals the greater of two calculations: either the sum of the maximum detected levels of PFOA and PFOS, or that same sum averaged with the square root of the highest level of any other individual PFAS compound detected. The square root component prevents a single exotic analyte from disproportionately inflating the score while still accounting for contamination beyond the two most common compounds.
These two values are plotted against an allocation table to determine an estimated payment range. The ranges cover Action Fund distributions only. They do not include Baseline Testing reimbursement, Special Needs Funds, or supplemental payments.7PFAS Water Settlement. Estimated Allocation Range Table
The Special Needs Fund
The Special Needs Fund covers costs beyond standard treatment installation: drilling replacement wells, purchasing supplemental water from other providers, decommissioning contaminated wells, and rerouting distribution pipes. Systems facing high remediation costs relative to their size should file for this fund in addition to the standard Action Fund claim.
The formula channels the most money toward systems with the highest treatment costs. Granular activated carbon filtration and ion exchange systems can cost millions to install and operate. Smaller systems with low contamination levels receive more modest payouts, but they still face real compliance costs once the EPA’s new drinking water limits take effect.
Documentation You’ll Need Before Filing
Gathering these categories of information before starting the online submission prevents the most common delays:8PFAS Water Settlement. Public Water System Settlement Claims Form
- System identification: Public Water System Identification Number (PWSID), system name, employer identification number, facility address, and contact information for a primary and secondary representative.
- SDWIS classification data, including the Owner Type Code and Facility Activity Code, plus confirmation that the system serves at least 15 year-round service connections and 25 year-round residents.
- A complete inventory of groundwater wells and surface water intakes, showing which have been tested and which showed measurable PFAS concentrations.
- Laboratory results from certified labs using EPA Method 533 or Method 537.1, with numeric concentration values rather than pass/fail determinations.
- Annual average flow rates and verified maximum flow rates for each impacted source. This data feeds the allocation formula directly.
- Litigation history: whether the system has filed a separate PFAS lawsuit, and if so, the court and case number.
- Proof that the person filing has authority to act for the water system, such as a board resolution or signed authorization from a municipal official.
Claims can be submitted online at pfaswatersettlement.com or by mail to the Claims Administrator.9Public Water Systems Settlement Program (3M). Public Water Systems Settlement Program (3M) – Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2873) The online portal generates confirmation records automatically.
Attorney Fees and the Offset for Private Counsel
Class counsel received an 8% fee on the 3M settlement, totaling $840 million based on the guaranteed floor of $10.5 billion, and that fee is deducted from settlement payments before they reach individual water systems. An additional 5% of the fee award is held back to cover the costs of administering the settlement through 2036.10PFAS Water Settlement. Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The 8% class counsel fee is credited against any private retainer a water system already signed. If your system hired a law firm on a contingency basis before joining the class, that firm’s fee is reduced by 8% to avoid double-charging. Systems with private counsel should review engagement letters to see how the offset applies to their arrangement.
Why the EPA Rule Puts Real Pressure on the 2026 Deadlines
The EPA finalized national drinking water standards for PFAS in April 2024, setting maximum contaminant levels at 4 parts per trillion for both PFOA and PFOS individually. The rule also set limits for four additional PFAS compounds and established a hazard index for certain PFAS mixtures.11Environmental Protection Agency. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Public water systems have until 2029 to comply with the PFOA and PFOS limits. In May 2026, the EPA proposed an exemption by rule that would give eligible systems in certain states a two-year extension to April 2031.12Federal Register. Extending the Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels Even with an extension, systems that violate these limits must notify the public and take corrective action.
The treatment technology needed to meet a 4 ppt standard is expensive. The settlement funds are designed to offset those costs, which is why missing a Phase 2 deadline is so damaging. A system that forfeits its payout still faces the same compliance obligations and the same construction costs, with no financial contribution from the companies that manufactured the contamination source.