2024 State Outlook
In 2024, several trends emerged addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. PFAS are a large, complex group of synthetic chemicals that have been used in consumer products around the world since about the 1950s.
States proposed stricter public water and stormwater requirements focused on monitoring and mitigating PFAS, including bills prioritizing funding for testing, cleanup, and filtration in public water systems. Liability legislation held commercial and industrial sources accountable for PFAS contamination. Several states enacted additional product restrictions including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
PFAS regulation had bipartisan support in New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida. In New Hampshire, under a Republican trifecta, HB 1415 advanced some of the broadest liability provisions. However, it was vetoed for being overly broad. In Virginia, a Democratic-majority legislature passed HB 1085, addressing stormwater requirements, which was signed into law by the state’s Republican governor. Meanwhile, in Florida, a Republican supermajority in the Senate introduced SB 1692, proposing PFAS-specific measures, though the bill ultimately stalled.
Several ReMA chapters engaged in legislative processes by amending bills, providing testimony, and submitting letters on state-specific legislation. The Rocky Mountain Chapter worked on SB 81 that was amended and passed, shifting from a wide-scale ban on any non-exempt product with intentionally added PFAS to a ban targeting several additional product categories. Although the chapter proposed an amendment to clarify that recycled materials and recyclers were not subject to the requirements, the bill’s sponsor maintained that the existing “intentionally added” definition already excluded recycled materials.
In California, the West Coast Chapter testified in opposition to Assembly Bill 2851. This bill underwent additional amendments that addressed some of the concerns. The revisions eliminated the biannual assessment requirement and modified the community notice advisory section to apply only when monitoring indicates a potential adverse impact on air quality and public health. The scope of consultation for DTSC was narrowed to include only the affected local pollution control and air quality management districts. Additionally, the chapter submitted a letter on April 15 outlining potential improvements to the bill, including advocating for local air pollution control and air quality management districts to assume primary responsibility for the development and oversight of these programs.
In Virginia and Florida, ReMA members were active on VA HB 1085 and FL HB 1665 / SB 1692 to ensure the recycled materials industry was not included among the list of industries targeted for PFAS testing.
Other enacted bills of note include:
- California AB 347: Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to enforce the PFAS restrictions on juvenile products, textiles, and food packaging by 2030, including PPM thresholds. Authorizes DTSC to test products and rely on third party testing to determine manufacturer compliance.
- Maryland HB 1153: MDE to identify significant industrial users and develop PFAS monitoring and testing criteria, PFAS action levels, and plans.
- Minnesota MN HF 3911: Line 61:18 requires recommendations for the 2025 session on strategies to require companies that manufacture, use, or release PFAS to pay for the cost of providing safe drinking water to people that have had their private and public water sources contaminated.
2025 State Forecast
In 2025, policymakers will likely introduce legislative solutions tackling contamination, ensuring accountability, and addressing funding needs related to state and local budgets. ReMA anticipates legislation concerning the impact on water quality, public health, environmental justice, and agriculture. Water quality will be a focus of 2025 PFAS legislation, with states expected to establish or tighten drinking water standards and contamination thresholds. Efforts will likely emphasize remediation funding, water treatment technology investments, and improved testing protocols.
States with significant budget constraints may see PFAS legislation as an opportunity to access alternative revenue sources. Municipalities could advocate for stricter state-level PFAS standards to pressure polluters to contribute financially to mitigation efforts.
Communities disproportionately affected by PFAS contamination may push for targeted cleanup efforts or healthcare resources. Regarding agriculture, states could explore regulations addressing PFAS contamination in soil, water used for irrigation, and agricultural products.
States on the West Coast, Hawaii, Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes, Northeast, Virginia, Florida, and potentially the broader Southeast and Gulf regions are expected to lead the next wave of PFAS legislation. In 2025, this issue will likely remain bipartisan, reflecting trends observed in several states last year.
States that already introduced PFAS legislation include:
- Oklahoma SB 271: Exempts protected passive receivers of PFAS that provide essential services from civil liability for costs arising from a release of PFAS to the environment. Includes solid waste management facilities but does not reference recycling facilities.
- Connecticut SB 53: Placeholder: establish a baseline for the remediation of PFAS on real property, require remediation only if a hazardous level is discovered.
- Kentucky HB 102: Creates a PFAS Working Group. Manufacturers that intentionally include PFAS in products must report. Prohibits wastewater treatment plants from refusing to accept or treat sewage due to concentration of PFAS. Requires promulgation of regulations requiring each wastewater treatment facility monitor and annual report PFAS concentration levels found in sewage.
- Texas HB 1730: Requires study on effects of PFAS on public health, including health impact of PFAS found in various products that regularly come in contact with professionals, including firefighters and chemical manufacturing workers.
- Restrictions on intentionally added PFAS in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Washington.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continued to address PFAS-related concerns, with actions including: designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, proposing to add nine PFAS as hazardous constituents under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, postponing the start of PFAS Reporting and Recordkeeping under the Toxic Substances Control Act from November 12, 2024 to July 11, 2025, and including PFAS monitoring in a proposed draft 2026 Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Stormwater Discharges (MSGP).
On July 30, ReMA petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court to review EPA’s PFAS Designation Rule, following behind the initial joint-petition filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Associated General Contractors of America, and the National Waste and Recycling Association (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al v. EPA, et al., Case No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. 2024)). EPA’s brief and subsequent reply briefs will be filed in 2025, with the deadline for the parties to file their final briefs currently set for April 2025.
The 118th Congress saw several proposed legislative attempts to exempt certain industries from PFAS Superfund liability. Those seeking “passive receiver” designations did not manufacture or use PFAS, but rather have “passively” received them through a myriad of products in the day-to-day nature of the industry. While it is unclear what type of remedial action would be necessary to eliminate PFAS exposure, Superfund liability could run into the millions of dollars for several non-manufacturing entities. Those measures did not move and it remains up to the 119th Congress to address.
The incoming Trump Administration and the Republican-controlled 119th Congress will likely shift the conversations surrounding PFAS, but it’s unclear as to what degree just yet.
Former Congressman Lee Zeldin, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is likely to follow the campaign call for deregulatory actions. Congressman Zeldin supported legislation that would have regulated certain PFAS under the National Drinking Water Standard, although the legislation did not pass, and EPA set their own standards last Spring. The incoming EPA may, or may not, decide to ask the Court to remand the CERCLA hazardous substance rule back to the agency to modify or revoke the rule, or revise the enforcement discretion or issue national guidance to delay the implementation or enforcement of the rule. It’s unclear what the agency will do.
In the 119th Congress, a Republican controlled House and Senate could lead to increased attention and a sympathetic ear to those impacted by EPA’s CERCLA designation. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va), Chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee indicated her support for passive receiver liability exemptions for several entities including farmers, water systems, and landfills. At a recent hearing, the Senator said, “EPA’s proposal to classify certain PFAS as hazardous substances under the [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)], though well-intentioned, would impose financial penalties on utilities that are tasked with cleaning up PFAS that they did not create and forcing unfair costs onto our local governments and ratepayers to address this.” She emphasized that, “Congress must exempt these entities . . . from CERCLA liability, while holding manufacturers and primary contributors accountable.”
While we may see federal attempts to ease regulation and liability, it’s highly likely that we see regulation of PFAS at the state level continuing.
For information on state legislative activities please reach out to Abby Blocker or Jusin Short, and for information on federal action please contact Kristen Hildreth, or David Wagger.
Photo: California State Capitol. Courtesy of Andre m, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
