PFAS Settlement Funds Arrive in Florida as Immunity Debate Heats Up in Congress

Settlement Funds Begin Flowing to Central Florida

For water utilities in Central Florida, the long-awaited settlement payments have started to arrive. According to the Central Florida Public Media report, the City of Sanford has already received substantial payments, $555,000 from DuPont in November 2025 and $2.2 million from 3M the month before. Meanwhile, utilities in DeLand and Deltona are expecting their settlement payments to begin in 2027.

These funds represent a crucial lifeline for communities grappling with PFAS contamination. The money will help cover the significant costs of installing advanced filtration systems, conducting ongoing water quality testing, and safely disposing of contaminated materials expenses that can quickly reach into the millions of dollars for a single water system.

But as the article notes, these payments will arrive in installments over many years, raising questions about whether the funding will be sufficient to address the full scope of contamination across Florida.

The Immunity Question: Congressional Discussions Underway

Perhaps more significant than the settlement payments themselves is the ongoing debate in Washington about immunity for water utilities. As Central Florida Public Media reports, discussions are happening in Congress about potentially shielding water utilities from liability specifically for two types of PFAS: PFOS and PFOA.

This immunity debate strikes at the heart of a fundamental question: who should be held accountable when communities discover harmful contamination in their drinking water?

A Legal Perspective on Water Utilities’ Unique Position

Attorney James Ferraro, Jr., who represents approximately 20 Florida utilities in PFAS litigation, provided important context in the Central Florida Public Media piece about why water utilities deserve to be treated differently from PFAS manufacturers.

“They are truly passive receivers,” Ferraro explained to the news outlet. “They did not put PFAS into the environment, they didn’t create PFAS. They’re not putting it into a product, directly or indirectly. They’re truly just trying to, at their core, provide clean drinking water.”

This characterization highlights a critical distinction that often gets lost in discussions about PFAS liability. Public water systems’ mission is to deliver safe drinking water to their communities. Unlike the manufacturers who produced PFAS-containing products for decades, utilities didn’t introduce these chemicals into the environment, they’re simply dealing with the consequences.

As Ferraro noted in the interview, “They’re not the ones who discharge PFAS into the environment. They’re treating raw water, from various sources, that may already have PFAS in it.”

The Superfund Designation Complicates Matters

The immunity discussion became more urgent after the EPA maintained PFOS and PFOA’s designation as hazardous substances under the Superfund law (CERCLA). As Ferraro explained to Central Florida Public Media, CERCLA “is a very powerful piece of legislation” where “the polluter pays” and defenses are extremely limited.

While CERCLA is designed to hold polluters accountable, its application to water utilities who receive PFAS contamination rather than discharge it, creates a problematic scenario. Without immunity provisions, utilities could potentially face Superfund liability for contamination they had no role in creating.

“If they would be subject to actions by citizens that they serve drinking water to, I think that would be misguided,” Ferraro told the news outlet.

Florida’s Alarming PFAS Contamination Rates

The Central Florida Public Media article cites troubling EPA data showing the scope of PFAS contamination in Florida. Among public water systems in the state with complete test results available, 34% detected PFAS above federal limits, nearly triple the 12% national average.

This elevated contamination rate underscores why settlement funds are so critical for Florida utilities, and why the immunity question carries particular weight in the state. With more than one-third of tested water systems showing contamination above federal thresholds, Florida utilities are on the front lines of addressing a crisis they didn’t create.

Recent EPA Regulatory Rollbacks Add Uncertainty

The article also highlights significant regulatory changes that have created additional uncertainty for water utilities. The EPA, under the Trump administration, announced it would uphold drinking water standards for only two types of PFAS (PFOS and PFOA), rolling back previous plans to regulate six different types of these chemicals.

Additionally, the compliance deadline for utilities to meet federal PFAS limits was extended from 2029 to 2031, giving water systems more time but also potentially prolonging exposure for some communities.

These regulatory shifts make the immunity and settlement fund discussions even more consequential. As oversight requirements change and compliance timelines extend, clarity about who bears responsibility for contamination becomes increasingly important.

Our Perspective: Immunity With Accountability

At Ferraro Law, we believe immunity provisions for water utilities make sense but they must be carefully crafted to maintain appropriate accountability. As Ferraro told Central Florida Public Media, he supports immunity for utilities “as long as utilities could still be held liable in cases of gross negligence.”

This balanced approach recognizes that:

1. Utilities shouldn’t be liable for contamination they didn’t cause. The manufacturers who produced and profited from PFAS products for decades bear primary responsibility for the contamination crisis.
2. Utilities must remain accountable for their own actions. Public water systems have obligations to monitor water quality, notify the public of contamination, and take timely, appropriate action to protect health. Immunity shouldn’t shield utilities from liability when they fail to meet these responsibilities.
3. The distinction between passive receipt and negligence matters. There’s a fundamental difference between a utility that discovers PFAS in its source water and takes proper action, versus a utility that fails to test, conceals results, or doesn’t address known contamination.

As Ferraro emphasized in the article, when it comes to ultimate responsibility, companies like 3M and DuPont “should be held most responsible, as mass manufacturers of products containing the harmful chemicals.”

What PFAS Contamination Means for Communities

The “forever chemicals” discussion can feel abstract, but the health implications are very real. PFAS have been linked to serious conditions including:

• Multiple types of cancer
• Thyroid disease and hormone disruption
• Immune system dysfunction
• Liver and kidney damage
• Developmental issues in children
• Pregnancy complications
• Elevated cholesterol levels

These chemicals don’t break down naturally in the environment, they persist indefinitely, accumulating in soil, water, and human bodies. For communities served by water systems with PFAS contamination, the health risks are ongoing until the contamination is addressed.

This is why settlement funds and proper remediation are so critical, and why accountability frameworks must ensure utilities have both the resources and the motivation to take action.

The Cost and Challenge of PFAS Remediation

The Central Florida Public Media article touches on why settlement funds are so essential: removing PFAS from drinking water is technically possible but extraordinarily expensive. Water utilities must invest in:

• Advanced filtration systems using technologies like granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis
• Continuous monitoring and testing to ensure PFAS levels remain below federal limits
• Safe disposal of contaminated filter media and treatment residuals
• Infrastructure upgrades to support new treatment systems
• Public notification and education efforts

For a single water system, these costs can easily reach millions of dollars. Smaller utilities, which serve many Florida communities, may struggle to afford these investments without settlement funds or other financial assistance.

Looking Ahead: What This Means for Florida Communities

The Central Florida Public Media article captures a pivotal moment in the PFAS crisis. Settlement funds are finally arriving, providing critical resources for remediation. But the legal and regulatory landscape remains uncertain.

Several key questions remain unanswered:

Will settlement funds be adequate? The payments are being distributed over many years, and it’s unclear whether they’ll cover the full costs of treatment, especially if additional PFAS compounds are regulated in the future.

How will immunity be structured? Congressional discussions are ongoing, but the specifics of any immunity provisions and what protections will remain for communities, are still being determined.

What about ongoing accountability? As EPA regulations shift and compliance deadlines extend, ensuring utilities take appropriate action to protect public health remains critical.

Will manufacturers face additional liability? The settlements with 3M and DuPont are significant, but questions persist about whether these companies will face further accountability for the decades-long contamination crisis.

Why This Story Matters

The Central Florida Public Media article illuminates the complex intersection of environmental law, public health, and community rights. Water utilities are caught between their duty to provide safe drinking water and the reality of contamination they didn’t cause. Communities deserve protection from harmful chemicals but also need their water systems to have adequate resources to address the problem.

At Ferraro Law, we focus on advocating for accountability where it belongs, with primary responsibility resting on manufacturers who produced PFAS products while allegedly knowing about their dangers.Water utilities should have access to settlement funds without facing liability for contamination they passively received, while still maintaining responsibility for their own actions and duties to protect public health.

The immunity debate in Congress will shape how these issues are resolved for years to come. As settlement funds continue to arrive in Florida and remediation efforts progress, the legal framework governing accountability will determine whether communities receive the protection they deserve while water utilities receive the support they need.

---

The attorneys at Ferraro Law have extensive experience representing water utilities, individuals, and communities affected by PFAS contamination. To learn more about our work representing governmental entities in PFAS and other environmental matters, visit our Governmental Entities litigation page: https://ferrarolaw.com/environmental-toxic-exposure/pfas-gov-entity