Your municipality is eligible for PFAS settlement funds. You’ve verified the settlement is real. Now comes the practical question: what does filing a claim actually involve?
Some municipalities will want to handle the process themselves. Others will hire a law firm. Others will work with a claims specialist like ERCZilla. All three paths can lead to recovered funds. But they require very different things from your team.
Here’s what each option actually looks like, so you can make an informed decision about which approach fits your municipality’s capacity and resources.
Filing Pro Se: What DIY Actually Requires
Yes, you can file a PFAS settlement claim without outside help. The Claims Administrator allows municipalities to file pro se (on their own). No one is required to hire anyone.
But “allowed” and “advisable” are different things.
The settlement formulas are complex. Your allocation depends on specific “Impacted Water Source” calculations and Flow Rate adjustments. These aren’t intuitive. They require understanding how the settlement defines and measures contamination, how different water sources are classified, and how flow rates translate into allocation amounts.
“If you misclassify a water source or fail to document specific remediation costs, your payout could be permanently reduced or denied entirely,” explains David Park, PFAS Claims Specialist at ERCZilla. “The Claims Administrator doesn’t fix errors for you. They process what you submit.”
Here’s what DIY filing would require from your staff:
Data gathering. You’d need to compile years of historical water testing data, document each water source, and assemble records of any PFAS-related costs you’ve incurred. For systems with multiple wells or intakes, this multiplies quickly.
Testing coordination. The settlement requires testing at each individual water source, not the treated water that comes out of the tap. You’d need to identify certified laboratories, schedule testing, ensure proper protocols are followed, and submit results within 45 days.
Form completion. The claim forms require specific technical information. Impacted Water Source calculations. Flow Rate data. Documentation of remediation expenses for Special Needs claims. Each field matters for your final allocation.
Deadline tracking. Phase 2 has multiple deadlines: January 1, 2026 for testing cost reimbursement, July 1, 2026 for test result submission, June 30 and July 31, 2026 for Action Fund claims, August 1, 2026 for Special Needs claims. Missing any of these can reduce or eliminate your recovery.
Review and submission. Before submitting, someone needs to verify that everything is accurate, complete, and optimized. Errors discovered after submission may not be correctable.
Some municipalities have the staff capacity and technical expertise to manage this. Many don’t. And for those that try but make mistakes, the consequences are permanent. There’s no appeals process for calculation errors.
Hiring a Law Firm Directly: What That Actually Looks Like
Law firms handle PFAS settlement claims. Many are actively marketing to municipalities right now. So why not just hire one directly?
You can. But understand what you’re signing up for.
Law firms are built for litigation, not data aggregation. Their expertise is in legal filings, court procedures, and settlement negotiations. What they’re typically not built for is the forensic data work that PFAS claims require.
“A direct engagement with a law firm often requires your city staff to do the heavy lifting,” says Sarah Mitchell, Municipal Partnerships Lead at ERCZilla. “You would have to gather years of testing data, fill out complex forms, and prove damages. The law firm files what you give them.”
This isn’t a criticism of law firms. It’s how the model works. Attorneys focus on legal matters. The administrative burden of compiling documentation, coordinating testing, and assembling proof of claim typically falls on the client.
For a municipality, that means your Public Works director or water system manager becomes the project manager for your claim. They’re the ones tracking down historical records, scheduling lab work, completing forms, and making sure everything is ready for the attorneys to file.
Some municipalities have staff who can take this on. But it’s a significant time commitment on top of existing responsibilities. And if the documentation isn’t complete or accurate, the law firm files what they have. Your allocation suffers accordingly.
The Third Option: A Claims Administrator Model
ERCZilla operates differently. We function as a specialized claims administrator, working alongside law firms rather than replacing them.
Here’s how the division works:
Law firms handle the legal filings. Court submissions, communication with the Settlement Administrator on legal matters, and ensuring compliance with court procedures. This is what they’re built for.
ERCZilla handles the forensic data work. We audit your historical water data, coordinate required testing, and assemble the “proof of claim” documentation. We act as the bridge between your Public Works department and the Settlement Administrator.
“We do the administrative legwork that law firms typically demand from their clients,” Mitchell explains. “We ensure your claim is complete, accurate, and optimized before it ever reaches the court.”
In practical terms, this means your staff involvement is limited to:
- Providing access to water sources for testing
- Supplying basic information about your water system
- Reviewing and approving key submissions
We handle the data gathering, the form completion, the deadline tracking, and the coordination between all parties. Your team doesn’t become the project manager. We do.
Why the Administrative Work Matters
The difference between a well-prepared claim and a poorly-prepared one isn’t just convenience. It’s money.
Settlement allocations are formula-driven. The formulas reward complete documentation, accurate classifications, and proper inclusion of all eligible costs. They don’t reward effort or good intentions. They reward precision.
“We ensure every eligible dollar is claimed and the paperwork is defect-free,” says Park. “That’s not just about avoiding denial. It’s about maximizing what your municipality is entitled to receive.”
Consider what’s at stake:
- A misclassified water source could reduce your allocation by tens of thousands of dollars
- Missing the Special Needs Fund deadline means forfeiting reimbursement for remediation costs you’ve already incurred
- Incomplete Flow Rate documentation could undervalue your system’s allocation
- Errors in testing submission could disqualify results entirely
The settlement fund is large, but it’s also fixed. Every dollar left on the table by one municipality doesn’t come back to them later. It gets distributed to others who filed correctly.
Making the Right Choice for Your Municipality
There’s no universal answer here. The right approach depends on your staff capacity, your timeline, and your comfort with the complexity involved.
Consider filing pro se if:
- You have dedicated staff who can commit significant time to this process
- Your water system is relatively simple (single source, straightforward documentation)
- You have internal expertise in settlement claims or similar regulatory filings
- You’re confident in your ability to interpret the allocation formulas correctly
Consider a direct law firm engagement if:
- You have staff capacity to handle the data gathering and documentation
- You want legal representation but can manage the administrative work internally
- Your municipality has worked with the firm before and understands their model
Consider working with ERCZilla if:
- Your staff is already stretched thin
- Your water system has multiple sources or complex documentation needs
- You want to minimize internal time commitment while maximizing recovery
- You’d rather have someone else manage the process end-to-end
We work on a contingency basis, which means you pay nothing unless we recover funds. We cover testing costs upfront. And we coordinate with experienced PFAS attorneys so you get both legal expertise and administrative support without managing multiple vendors.
Next Steps
If you want to discuss which approach makes sense for your municipality, schedule a brief call. We’ll talk through your specific situation, your staff capacity, and your water system’s complexity. No obligation.
You can also learn more about the claims process or review additional questions.
Whatever path you choose, the important thing is choosing one. The July 2026 deadline doesn’t move, and the complexity doesn’t decrease the longer you wait.
