States move to cement PFAS protections amid fears of federal rollbacks

Concerns are growing about the fate of a Biden-era rule to limit toxic PFAS chemicals in drinking water, with some states moving to introduce laws that would lock in place PFAS protections that could survive any potential rollback by the Trump Administration.

California introduced legislation on Wednesday that would direct the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt regulations at least as protective as those in the federal rule. If California’s bill passes, it will require state regulators to set new regulations by January 1, 2026 that would mirror the Biden Administration rule that set a limit on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water.

The legislation specifically calls for adopting the requirements in place on a federal level as of the day prior to President Donald Trump’s January 20^th inauguration.

“We think there’s a case here for folks to act with urgency given the developments in Washington, given the threat to public health and public safety that these chemicals pose,” Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-CA), who introduced the bill, said on a February 19 press call. “We are going to do this so we can protect our communities irrespective of what happens at the federal level.”

Lawmakers in multiple other states are making similar moves, including in Pennsylvania, Maine and Connecticut.

“It’s not unreasonable to be concerned that there would be a rollback of these policies here,” said Steve Hvozdovich, Pennsylvania Campaigns Director for the group Clean Water Action. “I think the quicker we can move the better.”

California’s push for protections

The proposed California law  – Assembly Bill 794  – is supported by public health and environmental groups that include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, California Environmental Voters, the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, and the Environmental Working Group.

The measure covers the same six PFAS chemicals as those in the national drinking water regulation finalized by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last April, and would set limits at the same levels, including 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which have been linked to cancer in humans by an international research group.

The bill would also give the State Water Resources Control Board flexibility to adopt tougher limits if science suggests they are needed, said Gabriel.

Almost 12 million Californians are exposed to PFAS contamination in their tap water, while at least 45% of US tap water may contain one or more of the so-called “forever chemicals,” data suggests. PFAS  have been linked to a number of health problems, including certain cancers, immune issues and reproductive harm.

Over the last several years, eleven states have set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), legally enforceable limits, for some PFAS chemicals in drinking water.

An annual report released Feb. 5 by Safer States, a national alliance of environmental health groups focused on toxic chemicals, suggests that at least 29 states will consider policies to address PFAS pollution in 2025. In addition to California, Alaska, Indiana, Maine, New York, South Carolina and Virginia are set to consider creating standards for PFAS in drinking water, groundwater, or surface water, or may restrict the chemicals in wastewater discharge, according to the report. The report does not attribute the anticipated trend to Trump’s election.

States take action

Driven by fears of losing federal protections, several states this year have already begun making moves to adopt PFAS in drinking water standards under their own state laws.

Last month, Pennsylvania state representative MaryLouise Isaacson reintroduced a bill that was originally referred to a state House environmental committee in March 2023, before the EPA issued its finalized PFAS in drinking water standards.

The proposed legislation would “ensure that Pennsylvania residents will be protected from all PFAS contaminants regardless of federal actions,” Isaacson wrote in a recent memo.

While the bill would establish an MCL of 10 ppt for some PFAS chemicals in drinking water, it would allow this standard to be superseded by the federal limit, effectively enabling Pennsylvania to adopt the federal standard for PFAS in drinking water if the bill passes, said Hvozdovich.

As the bill moves forward, it would likely be amended so that it can’t be superseded by weaker federal standards, he said.

“Pennsylvania does at least have their own MCL for PFOA and PFOS, but it would be good to have these stronger standards for a broader array of chemicals in place just in case something bad happens,” said Hvozdovich.

Connecticut is currently developing a bill to set limits for PFAS in drinking water, which state senator Christine Cohen may introduce by the end of the month, said Anne Hulick Connecticut Director for the group Clean Water Action. While the bill’s language has not yet been written, said Hulick, it may require public water suppliers to keep levels of some PFAS chemicals below 20 ppt and to conduct monthly testing.

Maine is also planning to introduce its own bill to cement the federal PFAS in drinking water limits in its state statute, legislation that would lead Maine to regulate eight total PFAS chemicals, said Sarah Woodbury, vice president of policy and advocacy at the Maine-based nonprofit Defend Our Health.

The bill, which may be introduced as soon as next week, came after Rep. Dan Shagoury of Maine was contacted by worried residents who asked him to adopt the stricter federal standards, fearing that the EPA’s rule could be rolled back under the Trump administration, she said.

“We’re lucky here in Maine that Maine legislature and the governor understand the importance of protecting people from PFAS, but you’re looking at people in states like Arkansas, Alabama, Texas or Montana that don’t have these standards,” said Woodbury. “There are millions of people that are going to be at risk from exposure if these are rolled back.”

“We hope it won’t happen, but we just think it’s a matter of time,” she said.

PFAS rules on shaky ground

Project 2025, a policy “wish list” developed by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation before Trump’s re-election, specifically says the administration should “revisit the designation of PFAS chemicals as ‘hazardous substances’ under CERCLA,” referring to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

PFOA and PFOS were designated as hazardous substances under CERCLA last year in a move designed to make polluters foot the bill for PFAS cleanups.

In December, before Trump’s inauguration, over 100 manufacturing groups signed a letter asking the soon-to-be Trump administration to pause both the drinking water rule and the designation of PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, which it called “overly burdensome and unworkable regulations.”

Now, just a month into Trump’s new term as president, a number of the administration’s actions have state legislators and health and environmental advocates worried about the future of federal PFAS protections.

After issuing an executive order freezing new federal regulations pending review, the EPA withdrew a draft rule that proposed limits for PFAS in industrial wastewater during Trump’s first week in office, which environmental groups called a “devastating setback.”

More recently, the DC Circuit court granted the EPA a 60-day suspension of litigation in which industry groups are challenging the PFAS drinking water rule, giving the Trump administration time to review the regulation.

This move could lead the administration to decide it will no longer defend the rule, or agree to rescind the rule or make changes to it, said Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group.

Despite this, Mary Grant, director of Public Water for All at the group Food & Water Watch, said the federal drinking water rule is backed by strong legal protections, although she does have general concerns about the extent to which the Trump administration will follow the rule of law, she said.

“The Safe Drinking Water Act is a pretty strong law,” said Grant.  “Even if the Trump administration decides not to defend it in court, it would be remanded back to the agency to rework. There’s an anti-backsliding provision.”

“I’m far more concerned about CERCLA,” said Grant. She fears the administration will put in place carveouts for certain industries such as airports, the military, and landfills, exempting them from the rule, she said.

“If you get rid of the CERCLA provision, removing tools to help hold polluters accountable to clean up our waterways, the burden’s going to fall on the public,” said Grant.

The EPA is also seeking a 60-day stay on litigation challenging the CERCLA rule for PFAS, which, if granted, could lead the administration to roll back or revise the regulation.

(Featured image by Joseph Greve on Unsplash.)