PFAS Road Map 2026: Where Things Stand; Where Policymakers Are Going

by Nathan E. Vassar

Following the rush of the holidays and the jump back into a normal pace in 2026, one would be forgiven for losing track of where things stand in the world of PFAS regulation, proposed legislation, and anticipated changes to existing law. Amidst rules, proposed rules, and policy announcements that span drinking water, wastewater, CERCLA, and biosolids, there are plenty of moving parts; however, below is an attempt to start 2026 with a snapshot of where legislators, regulators, and policymakers are—at present—on the PFAS regulatory front.

In simplest terms, and as often described with clients and fellow consultants, there are four PFAS categories or “buckets” to consider and understand: 1-drinking water; 2-wastewater; 3-biosolids; and 4-CERCLA (or more commonly known as “Superfund”). Also at a high level, most regulation on PFAS has been at the federal level (so far) and tied to drinking water limits and CERCLA designations. However, as described further below, there are, and will continue to be, state-led proposals for PFAS spanning different environmental media.

Drinking Water and PFAS: The fastest-arriving PFAS regulations are in the drinking water space, as EPA in 2024 announced six Maximum Contaminant Limits (“MCLs”) with monitoring requirements set to commence in 2027, and numeric compliance by 2029. However, in Spring 2025, the new Administration announced a planned rollback (not yet implemented by rulemaking at the time of publication) of four of those six MCLs. The chart (Figure 1) below reveals what the current EPA has stated it intends to implement on PFAS MCLs, maintaining a four parts per trillion MCL for PFOA and PFOS, while ditching the balance of the earlier-proposed MCLs. Furthermore, EPA has announced a plan to keep the 2027 initial monitoring for PFOA and PFOS, but to delay compliance from 2029 to 2031. It was anticipated that a rulemaking to this effect would commence in fall 2025, but such plans were delayed as a result of the federal government shutdown.

Wastewater and PFAS: Most of the wastewater-related PFAS attention has been in the realm of biosolids, discussed below, but with regard to wastewater and PFAS regulation, there is no immediate threat of adopting NPDES/TPDES limits. Although NGOs and other environmental advocates have pressed for PFAS-in-wastewater oversight, as of early 2026, neither EPA nor the TCEQ have announced any intentions to move in the direction of wastewater PFAS permit limits at any time now or in the future (although some states outside of Texas are initiating monitoring).

Biosolids and PFAS: Across the country, and here in our backyard, there has been considerable attention given to the presence of PFAS in biosolids, which is, of course, frequently used and sold as fertilizer. In Texas, there are no on-the-books regulations tied to PFAS and biosolids; however, there have been at least three attempts in the last couple of years to curtail or outright ban the land application of biosolids containing PFAS (some even attaching criminal liability for knowing or intentional violations). There was an Office of the State Chemist rulemaking that spanned late 2024 and into 2025 (ultimately it did not move forward) as well as several bills/companions introduced during the 89th Regular and 89th Second Special Session addressing the land application of biosolids containing PFAS. Although the legislation did not pass, if the proverbial cat has nine lives, PFAS biosolids bills still have at least six remaining, as the issue has become one of public and political interest, including with prospective regulation pushed by members of both major political parties. The primary concern for wastewater utilities is disposal options and costs, as according to TCEQ and as stated in legislative testimony, there are only 2-3 landfills in Texas that would be capable of receiving biosolids if a ban on land application were ever enacted (a ban was enacted in Maine a few years ago, and other states have seen similar momentum).

CERCLA and PFAS: Last but not least, two PFAS substances (PFOA and PFOS) have been classified under the federal CERCLA Superfund law as “hazardous substances,” and the Trump EPA has stated that while these designations took place under the Biden Administration, there is no planned recission of PFOA/PFOS’ categorization as hazardous substances. What this means in practice is that in the event a utility/city is pursued as a potentially responsible party with obligations for environmental clean-up costs, to the extent that such clean-up involves the presence of PFOA/PFOS (tied to an action of the utility – and other requirements under CERCLA), then a utility could conceivably be on the hook for payments in such a Superfund action. At present, national industry groups, including both the Water Environment Federation and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, are working with Congress to seek a “passive receiver” exception under CERCLA, as water and wastewater industries are not the manufacturers of PFAS chemicals. Many expect that legislation to get some traction in Congress, but there are no guarantees, of course.

In the months ahead in this new year, we anticipate additional developments across multiple fronts and in these four different areas. Consequently, it remains as important as ever to remain engaged with your teams, including both technical and legal, as well as core industry groups that are both tracking and advocating for utilities. There are many ways to engage with regulators and legislators, in order to better understand implementation of existing rules, as well as to push for PFAS paths that are attainable and affordable. Each individual utility can benefit from the collective knowledge from others similarly situated across the state as we all navigate the new frontiers of PFAS rules and compliance challenges.

Nathan E. Vassar is a Principal in the Firm’s Water, Compliance and Enforcement, Litigation, and Appellate Practice Groups. If you have any questions or would like additional information related to this article or other matters, please contact Nathan at 512.322.5867 or nvassar@lglawfirm.com.