The following information has been provided by Grossman & Associates, who are the lead on the PFAS settlement funds. If you have any questions or want to see if your local government or utility qualifies, please contact Elizabeth Shea at elizabeth@navigate-ak.com. 

Billions of dollars are sitting in a federally supervised settlement fund waiting to be distributed to public water systems across the country who test positive for PFAS contamination. Alaska communities should be encouraged to test their water and based on the results, apply for a portion of the settlement.

Are we asleep at the wheel? Water systems with communities similar in size to Alaska communities in other states are actively filing claims and receiving settlement distributions of millions of dollars for PFAS contamination. The question worth asking is whether eligible communities in Alaska are missing out on an unprecedented opportunity. 

More than 20 Alaska communities are eligible across both Phase One and Phase Two, and the testing that triggers eligibility is already federally required. There is still time to act, and the path to participation is straightforward: test the water (at no cost), file the claim, and let the settlement do what it was designed to do. This is a once-in-a-generation municipal recovery opportunity tied to 60 years of environmental contamination, and the communities that engage now will be the ones that secure funding for their residents rather than watching those dollars flow to water systems in other states.

During initial outreach by distributors of the funding, city managers and utility directors across Alaska are ignoring or slow-walking these efforts because they resemble a legal solicitation. Meanwhile, the federal testing deadline (July 31, 2026) is just over two months away, and communities that miss it lose eligibility permanently.

This is not a lawsuit. The settlement is already done. The money is already there.

The settlement is overseen by a federal judge in South Carolina. The defendants (3M, DuPont/Chemours, Tyco, BASF) have already agreed and funded it. This is not speculative litigation. It is a done deal. The only question is whether Alaska communities will claim their share or let it go to water systems in other states.

Key facts:

• Nine Alaska water systems are on the Phase Two eligible list, collectively serving more than 128,000 Alaskans. These include communities of all sizes, from systems serving a few thousand to one serving nearly 40,000.
• The Alaska Municipal League flagged this to city managers across the state in an email in December 2025. AML made clear they did not want communities to be left out and that the settlement funds were real.
• These communities are already federally required to test their water for 30 PFAS compounds under UCMR 5. That is not optional. That is happening regardless of the settlement.
• Through the settlement program, all required testing can be done at zero cost to the community. If contamination is found, settlement funds pay for remediation. If the water is clean, the community is in compliance with no expense to ratepayers.
• The settlement has three separate funding pathways that most communities have not fully evaluated: an Action Fund (direct payments based on contamination scoring and flow rate), a Special Fund (reimbursement for prior testing, filtration, and infrastructure spending), and a Supplemental Fund (forward-looking protection for emerging contamination).
• Communities that think they have already handled PFAS may be wrong. Attorneys working this nationally report that assumptions like “we opted out,” “we already filed,” or “we don’t have PFAS” are frequently incomplete or legally incorrect, and the consequences of inaction are permanent.

The second wave is even bigger for Alaska. Beyond the water settlement, the next phase of litigation targets contamination sources: airports (including Part 139 AFFF usage), fire training facilities, fire departments (including turnout gear exposure), military bases, landfills, and wastewater/stormwater systems. Alaska’s density of military installations, rural airports, and AFFF usage history makes the state uniquely positioned for this round. Early participants historically recover significantly more than late entrants.

The real story: This is a case where healthy skepticism may be costing Alaska communities real money. The thing they need to do (test their water) is already required by federal law. The settlement just pays for it. City managers who are being cautious are not wrong to ask questions, but communities that run out the clock without engaging risk permanent exclusion from a once-in-a-generation recovery opportunity.

What makes this different from typical legal solicitations:

• The settlement is already finalized and funded. No one is asking communities to join a lawsuit.
• The testing is federally mandated anyway. The settlement simply covers the cost.
• AML has communicated to member communities that they should not ignore or miss out on the opportunity to receive funding. .
• The fee structure is pure contingency. Communities pay nothing unless money comes in. If the water is clean, they owe nothing and are in federal compliance.

There is no downside to testing. There is significant downside to not testing.

Conclusion: This is not a story about lawyers chasing cities. It is a story about cities missing a real opportunity because the packaging looks like something they have been trained to ignore. The bottom line: billions available, zero cost to participate, federal compliance built in, and Alaskan communities should be encouraged to apply rather than dragging their feet.