PFAS Fight Widens

Together, the developments highlight a widening conflict over PFAS — with states trying to fund cleanup through blockbuster settlements even as critics argue federal approvals could introduce new sources of contamination.

New Jersey Settlements Under Scrutiny

A New Jersey federal judge is pressing the state to justify nearly $3 billion in proposed PFAS settlements with DuPont and 3M, and if the consent orders truly serve the public interest. U.S. District Judge Renee M. Bumb ordered details on how the figures were calculated and how the money will be distributed–as municipalities, counties and utility authorities object that the deals could release the companies too broadly from future contamination costs.

According to Law360, Judge Bumb in early January said she needed “some assurance that this PFAS settlement is a positive one,” noting what she described as a “curious” disconnect: the state argues the deals will help local governments address PFAS contamination, yet multiple local entities are in court warning the settlements could leave them paying for cleanup in their own backyards. 

New Jersey’s Lawsuit

New Jersey filed a lawsuit in 2019, accusing “Old DuPont,” 3M and related entities of secretly discharging PFAS and other hazardous substances — including polychlorinated biphenyls, metals, and pesticide— over 125 years of operations at DuPont’s Chambers Works site in Cumberland County.

The larger of the two deals is a $2.5 billion agreement with DuPont and related entities that the state announced in August 2025, describing it as the largest environmental settlement ever achieved by a single state. Under the agreement, DuPont and its related companies would pay $875 million over 25 years, with funds allocated to restoration of injured natural resources and abatement. About $125 million would go toward costs, fees, penalties and punitive damages.

In addition, the companies agreed to create a remediation funding source of up to $1.2 billion, plus an additional reserve fund of $475 million aimed at protecting taxpayers if one of the companies were to go bankrupt or fail to meet its obligations. The corporate defendants covered by the deal include DuPont spinoff Chemours and related entities such as DuPont Specialty Products USA LLC, Corteva Inc. and DuPont de Nemours Inc. (sometimes described as “New DuPont”). Separately, 3M reached a $450 million deal with the state earlier in 2025.

PFAS have been linked in scientific research to a range of health concerns, and cleanup often requires costly long-term filtration and remediation — one reason local governments say they want clearer protections before claims are released.

Money Now vs Rights Later?

Objectors told the court that the releases in the proposed consent orders go too far by potentially wiping out municipalities’ and counties’ ability to pursue future claims for contamination costs in their own jurisdictions. Several entities argued they face real, localized expenses — not hypotheticals — including long-term remediation of contaminated properties and upgrades to sewerage and water infrastructure.

A group of sewerage and utility authorities, participating as amici curiae, argued they should retain the ability to seek compensation later for costly PFAS-related infrastructure work. Judge Bumb said she was concerned by claims that utility bills for residents could triple, though she also pushed objectors to offer more than general fears about what might happen.

The judge noted there would never be settlements if defendants believed litigation would continue indefinitely. “I can’t just sit up here and be held hostage to these hypotheticals that may or may not happen,” she said, urging objectors to provide more than “anxiety and worry.”

Recent PFAS-related settlements cited in public reports include:

• $10.3 Billion from former firefighting foam manufacturer 3M, which will go to states like New Hampshire, Florida, Washington, and New Jersey
• $1.18 Billion PFAS settlement funded by Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva
• $316 Million from BASF (the world’s largest chemical producer) to resolve PFAS contamination claims
• $450 Million in New Jersey for PFAS water pollution linked to 3M
• $730 Million from Carrier Global and their subsidiary Kidde-Fenwal
• $750 Million to resolve AFFF and PFAS claims against Wisconsin-based Tyco Fire Products

The cases are New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. et al., case numbers1:19-cv-14758 and 1:19-cv-14766, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

EPA Sued Over PFAS Pesticide Amid Michigan Contamination

In a separate development, conservation groups filed a lawsuit on January 15, 2026 against the EPA, disputing the agency’s approval of a PFAS-based pesticide intended for use on major food crops, as well as lawns and golf courses. Nathan Donley, environmental health science director for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the approval “incredibly scary,” arguing it could spread persistent chemicals across “pretty much every single crop you can think of.”

The EPA proposed registering five pesticides containing the “forever chemicals” (aka PFAS) beginning in April and has approved two. The chemicals named in the reporting include:

• cyclobutrifluram
• isocycloseram
• diflufenican
• trifludimoxazin
• epyrifenacil

Supporters of the EPA’s decision argue the agency followed federal law and relied on scientific risk assessments, saying the pesticide is needed to protect crops and maintain food production. They also point to restrictions and application limits intended to reduce risk to people and the environment.

Critics highlight EPA studies showing the pesticide’s effects on lab animals, including:

• reduced testicle size,
• lower sperm count,
• liver damage
• cancer risk.

The report also notes Australian regulators linked it to birth defects in fetal rats, though the EPA disputes that conclusion. The lawsuit further raises questions about whether chemical approvals are influenced more by industry priorities than by public health protections. Donley alleged that senior officials in the EPA’s chemicals office include political appointees who previously worked as lobbyists for groups advocating expanded chemical and pesticide use.

Whether through settlement trust funds or federal pesticide approvals, PFAS disputes are increasingly shaping what communities pay now — and what risks they may inherit later.