How State-Level PFAS Regulations are Progressing in 2026

VIew PFAS legislation by state MAP

Federal per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulatory activity has slowed since January 2025 amid broader deregulatory trends. Several environmental actions addressing PFAS in drinking and receiving waters, stormwater, contaminated sites, waste management, permitting, firefighting foam use/disposal, reporting, and the control of consumer and industrial chemicals remain under review and/or are subject to additional rulemaking. Though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still faces unresolved questions before a clear and consistent federal framework re-emerges for regulated stakeholders. Moreover, there are pending legal challenges further clouding the federal PFAS playing field.

In this environment of federal PFAS actions uncertainty, state legislatures continue to play an important role in shaping PFAS policy across the U.S. In early 2026 alone, at least 82 PFAS-related bills were introduced across more than 20 states, signaling sustained state-level momentum around PFAS. Other legislative trackers suggest the total number of bills introduced this session may be closer to 100 once measures added later in the winter and early spring are included.

Notably, these figures do not account for hundreds of PFAS bills carried over from prior sessions, underscoring that lawmakers are frequently revisiting, expanding, or refining earlier proposals rather than starting from scratch. Once introduced, the bills tend to linger on the legislative agenda rather than disappearing. Together, this activity points to sustained momentum, not a short-term spike.

While individual proposals vary widely, state actions generally fall into a few consistent legislative categories concerning water quality standards, permitting/monitoring, biosolids, bans and phaseouts, cleanup limits, and waste disposal. Implied in rulemaking is the consideration of multistakeholder interests that result in bills passing, being modified, or stalling. Understanding the general themes and how they are taking shape in practice can help organizations anticipate where PFAS requirements may emerge next.

Water Standards, Testing, and Response

This is a major category for state PFAS legislative actions. Drinking water, receiving water, and groundwater quality bills range from requiring PFAS testing of public water systems (often in concert with federal requirements) to permitting and establishing enforceable cleanup or response thresholds under state law.

Several states, including New Jersey, Minnesota, and California, have adopted enforceable PFAS drinking water standards or expanded statewide monitoring programs beyond federal requirements, such as testing and reporting a larger set of PFAS compounds than specified by the EPA. In other cases, such as Alaska, proposed legislation has emphasized monitoring near potential release areas and ensuring alternative drinking water when exceedances occur. States such as Utah and Wyoming have taken a more incremental approach, relying on monitoring, data collection, and coordination with federal programs, while evaluating whether additional state-specific limits are warranted.

PFAS in Wastewater, Biosolids, Stormwater, and Industrial Discharges

Another category gaining local/regional interest is municipal and industrial discharges. Several states are beginning to look beyond PFAS in drinking water to address PFAS in wastewater, biosolids, stormwater, and industrial discharges. Proposed legislation in this area may require facilities to report PFAS use, monitor discharges, or evaluate treatment and disposal practices.

While this category is still emerging, it is gaining attention in several states, including Minnesota, Michigan, and Texas, where lawmakers and regulators are exploring data-driven approaches, facility reporting, or targeted studies as a first step. Similar conversations are emerging in states such as Oklahoma. These efforts often focus on understanding PFAS pathways through treatment systems before imposing prescriptive limits.

A handful of states have outpaced their peers in regulating biosolids. Namely, Maine, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, New York, and Washington have developed restrictive biosolids land application measures to control PFAS migration into soil and groundwater, as well as uptake by forage and livestock.

Pre-treatment and discharge permit status for PFAS at the state level is in flux, partly because of pending federal actions affecting most states, such as the fate of the permit writer’s guidance, which may be withdrawn by the current administration. Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and North Carolina have had PFAS permitting activity under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which requires monitoring and notification provisions. Most permits have been augmented with PFAS for specific facilities (e.g., PFAS manufacturing/processing) rather than through wholesale adoption. The permitting process has not been free from litigation challenges involving proponents and opponents, demonstrating the continued existence of diverging interests.

PFAS in Firefighting Foam and Protective Equipment

The firefighting foam, specifically the legacy aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) formulated with PFAS, remains one of the most active and sometimes least controversial areas of PFAS legislation. Bills in this category typically focus on prohibiting the use or sale of PFAS-containing foam, requiring disclosure when PFAS-containing equipment is sold, or funding collection and disposal programs.

States including California, Colorado, Maine, and New Jersey have considered advanced legislation addressing firefighting foam and firefighter protective equipment. These efforts range from restrictions on PFAS-containing AFFF to disclosure and transition requirements. In some cases, legislation emphasizes transition planning and inventory reporting; in others, it moves toward full phaseouts or limits on training use. By contrast, proposals in states such as Texas have tended to focus more narrowly on use limitations, reporting requirements, or study-based approaches. Because firefighting equipment is closely tied to public safety, these bills often become early entry points for broader PFAS regulation.

PFAS Consumer Product Restrictions and Phase-Outs

A significant share of state PFAS bills focus on limiting or eliminating intentionally added PFAS in consumer and industrial products. Rather than addressing individual compounds one at a time, many states are regulating PFAS as a class, often by product category.

Common targets include cosmetics and personal care products, cookware and food packaging, textiles and carpets, and firefighting gear. For example, states such as California, Minnesota, and New York have enacted or advanced broad product-based PFAS restrictions in recent years, often regulating PFAS as a class and phasing in requirements over time. Similar proposals have emerged in states like Ohio and New Jersey, reflecting growing interest in upstream controls to reduce PFAS use before it reaches the environment.

These laws often include essential/unavoidable use exemptions and delayed compliance dates, allowing time for reformulation and supply chain adjustments, but they signal a clear direction toward long-term PFAS reduction.

PFAS Reporting, Disclosure, and Registration Requirements

Not all PFAS bills impose immediate bans or numeric limits. Many states are using reporting and disclosure requirements to build foundational datasets and improve transparency, akin to EPA’s efforts.

These bills may require manufacturers to disclose products containing intentionally added PFAS, register such products with a state agency, or provide written notice to downstream purchasers. States including California, New York, Minnesota, and Colorado have advanced reporting, disclosure, or product registration requirements, often pairing transparency measures with future restrictions.

Reporting-focused legislation can be a precursor to more substantive regulation, allowing states to assess the scope of PFAS use before determining next steps.

What These State-Level PFAS Trends Signal

Taken together, state-level PFAS bills illustrate several clear patterns. States are increasingly regulating PFAS, prioritizing prevention and upstream controls, and moving from exploratory studies toward implementation. Even in states where legislation remains limited or narrowly scoped, PFAS are firmly on the regulatory radar and in tune with EPA actions.

As federal PFAS policy continues to evolve, state legislatures are likely to remain an important source of new requirements. For organizations operating across multiple jurisdictions, staying informed about the legislative themes at play can provide early insight into where PFAS obligations may expand next.

Why State-Level PFAS Legislation Matters

State-level PFAS legislation is shaping compliance obligations now, not just signaling future change. Even when bills focus on reporting or product disclosure rather than enforceable limits, they often lay the groundwork for broader requirements in later sessions. State legislative activity often reflects the “behind-the-scenes” stakeholder pressure, sometimes also involving procedural and/or civil suits.

For facilities, manufacturers, and utilities operating across multiple states, the patchwork of bills covering the various themes can lead to difficulties in understanding/tracking requirements, staggered compliance timelines, and expanding data and documentation requirements.

Tracking how states are approaching PFAS can help organizations anticipate where monitoring, reporting, or operational adjustments may be needed next. As federal PFAS policy continues to evolve, state action is increasingly setting the pace for now in how PFAS risks are managed on the ground.

PFAS Consultation and Assistance

Our regulatory and PFAS experts are constantly tracking developments at the state and federal levels. As such, we are familiar with rulemaking details and nuances applicable to regulated facilities. We would be glad to inform, educate, and navigate any PFAS challenge you’ve encountered.

State-Level PFAS Legislative Activity in the U.S. Map

A high-level view of how states are approaching PFAS legislation and regulation.

Enacted or Implementing PFAS Restrictions

States that have enacted PFAS requirements beyond exploratory action, including product restrictions, drinking water standards, or phased implementation timelines. Many are actively enforcing requirements or preparing for near-term compliance.

Active PFAS Legislation

States that consistently introduce PFAS-related legislation across areas such as product regulation, water quality, firefighting foam, and reporting. Sustained legislative activity signals clear policy direction, even where proposals remain under consideration.

Monitoring, Standards, or Site Response Focus

States emphasizing PFAS testing, monitoring, cleanup standards, or site response, often centered on drinking water or contaminated sites. Action is frequently data-driven and programmatic rather than prescriptive.

Reporting, Disclosure, or Study-Based Approaches

States focused on PFAS reporting, disclosure, inventories, or formal studies to better understand use and exposure pathways. These efforts often serve as a foundation for future regulatory action.

Limited or Emerging Activity

States with limited PFAS-specific legislation to date, where activity is primarily aligned with federal programs or early-stage evaluation rather than standalone state requirements.