Across the country, public water systems that meet every EPA standard are filing claims for PFAS settlement funds. Their drinking water is clean. Their residents aren’t at risk. And they’re still participating.
This surprises some municipal officials, who assume the settlement is only for systems with contamination problems. It’s not. The settlement is for eligible water systems, period. And eligibility has nothing to do with whether your finished drinking water is safe.
Here’s why municipalities with clean water are participating, and why yours probably should too.
The Settlement Is a Financial Decision, Not a Health Admission
The PFAS settlement exists because 3M, DuPont, and other manufacturers sold products they knew were harmful. Courts agreed they should pay for the contamination they caused. The result is more than $12.5 billion in settlement funds available to eligible public water systems.
Participating in the settlement means recovering funds your community is entitled to. It means holding polluters accountable. It means securing money for infrastructure, testing, and treatment upgrades.
It does not mean your drinking water is unsafe. It does not mean you’re admitting to a problem. It does not mean residents should be concerned.
“Participating in the settlement is a financial decision,” explains Sarah Mitchell, Municipal Partnerships Lead at ERCZilla. “Many municipalities with perfectly safe drinking water are participating simply to recover testing costs and hold manufacturers accountable.”
The question isn’t whether your water has problems. The question is whether you want to recover funds that are legally yours.
Source Water Testing vs. Drinking Water Safety
The settlement requires testing, but not on the water your residents drink.
Settlement testing is performed on source water: raw water from wells, rivers, or reservoirs before it enters your treatment system. This is water in its natural state, before filtration, treatment, or processing.
What residents drink is finished water: source water after it has been treated to meet EPA standards.
These are completely different things.
“Source water testing tells you what’s in the environment,” says David Park, PFAS Claims Specialist at ERCZilla. “Finished water testing tells you what’s coming out of the tap. A municipality can have PFAS in source water and perfectly safe drinking water. That’s exactly what treatment systems are designed to accomplish.”
Finding PFAS in source water is common. These chemicals are everywhere: in rainwater, groundwater, rivers, and lakes across the country. A source water detection doesn’t mean something went wrong in your community. It means PFAS exists in the environment, which isn’t news to anyone.
What matters for public health is finished water. If your treatment system removes contaminants before water reaches residents (which many do), source water results don’t change what comes out of the tap.
What Participation Signals to Your Community
When a municipality participates in the PFAS settlement, it communicates:
Fiscal responsibility. Eligible municipalities that don’t file claims forfeit funds they’re entitled to. Those funds go to other communities instead. Participating is simply good financial management.
Accountability for polluters. 3M and DuPont manufactured products they knew were harmful for decades. The settlement is the consequence. Participating ensures your community gets its fair share.
Proactive infrastructure investment. Settlement funds can be used for testing, treatment upgrades, and water system improvements. Participation positions this as investment in your community’s future.
Awareness and action. Your municipality knows about the opportunity and is acting on it. That’s what responsible governance looks like.
None of this signals that your water is unsafe. Municipalities that want to emphasize their water quality can do so clearly: “Our drinking water meets all EPA standards. We’re participating in the settlement to recover funds for infrastructure and hold polluters accountable.”
That’s not spin. It’s just the truth.
The Risk of Not Participating
Some municipal officials hesitate because they worry about perception. What if someone misunderstands? What if there’s a news story? What if council members get questions?
These concerns are manageable. A clear message handles them.
What’s not manageable is the consequence of not participating.
“The municipalities that will face the hardest questions aren’t the ones that participated,” notes Marcus Chen, Recovery Director at ERCZilla. “They’re the ones that didn’t participate, and later have to explain to their councils why they left millions of dollars on the table.”
Consider the comparison:
If you participate and someone misunderstands, you explain the source water vs. drinking water distinction. You point to your water quality reports. You note that thousands of municipalities with safe water are doing the same thing. The conversation is over.
If you don’t participate and the deadline passes, those funds are gone permanently. Years from now, when the settlement becomes widely known, you may need to explain why you didn’t act. If PFAS does become an issue later, you’ll have missed the window to recover costs. There’s no second chance.
One scenario involves a communication challenge. The other involves permanent financial consequences.
What Other Municipalities Are Saying
Municipalities across the country have found straightforward ways to communicate their participation:
“We’re recovering funds to strengthen our water infrastructure.”
Settlement funds support testing, treatment, and system improvements. This frames participation as proactive investment.
“We’re ensuring polluters pay for the contamination they caused.”
The settlement exists because manufacturers acted irresponsibly. Participation is accountability.
“Our drinking water meets all safety standards. This settlement is about recovering costs and improving infrastructure.”
Direct, factual, and clear. No hedging required.
Most residents won’t have strong opinions about the settlement. The ones who pay attention will likely appreciate that their municipality is pursuing available funding rather than leaving money for other communities to claim.
The Bottom Line
Municipalities with safe drinking water are participating in the PFAS settlement because it makes sense. The funds are available. The eligibility requirements have nothing to do with drinking water safety. And the alternative is forfeiting money your community is entitled to.
The average recovery is approximately $2.5 million, though amounts vary by system size and PFAS levels. For systems with multiple water sources, each source may qualify separately.
The deadline for Phase 2 claims is July 2026. It’s not flexible.
If your municipality hasn’t started the process, schedule a brief call to confirm eligibility and talk through what participation involves. We can discuss how other municipalities are communicating their involvement and what the process looks like for your specific situation.
You can also learn more about the claims process or review additional questions.
Your water can be safe and you can participate in the settlement. Thousands of municipalities are proving that right now.
