Background
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS, are a group of almost 1,500 synthetic chemicals. They are sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment. These substances are found around the world in water, air, fish, and soil. PFAS have been used in consumer products since around the 1950s, and are used in various industries including construction, electronics, aerospace, and automotive. Nonstick cookware coated with Teflon was introduced in 1946, and chemicals from Teflon include thousands of PFAS. Notably, PFAS are nonstick, stain-repellent, and waterproof, making them appealing for a variety of uses. The United States Department of Defense has used firefighting foam containing PFAS for training, leaving 664 current or former military fire or crash training sites likely contaminated by PFAS as of 2014.
PFAS have an extensive bodily impact on many humans. One study estimated that 97 to 100 percent of Americans have PFAS in their blood. Another study published in 2025 found that “in males, PFAS exposure was associated with cancers in the urinary system, brain, leukemia, and soft tissues. In females, PFAS exposure was associated with cancers in the endocrine system, oral cavity and pharynx, and soft tissue.” The researchers estimated that at least 4,600 cases of cancer were linked to PFAS in U.S. drinking water. In 2025, it was found that PFAS levels are above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s safety standard in 47 states. The EPA has “legally enforceable levels, called Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for six PFAS in drinking water.”
The first national legal drinking water standard in the U.S. was passed by the Biden-Harris administration in April 2024 with a focus on limiting PFAS. The standard limited the following:
- Five individual PFAS: PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA.
- Mixtures of any two or more of four PFAS: PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA.
The most common PFAS are PFOA and PFOS.
In response to the national legal drinking water standard, several chemical and manufacturing groups sued the EPA in June 2024. The American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers jointly filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and described the standard as “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” In another petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies argued that the agency did not take into account the costs.
In California alone, “[w]ater providers and the Department of Defense have already spent $571 million and are planning to spend a further $1.13 billion to address PFAS” with “expected costs to meet federal drinking water standards are estimated to be $161–$217 million annually.”
Recent Efforts to Roll Back Water Regulations
In a motion filed in the federal court in September 2025, the EPA asked to roll back its previous regulations and standards for four PFAS chemicals: GenX, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS. Previously, on May 14 of the same year, the EPA announced that it would extend the compliance date from 2029 to 2031. In the same May 2025 announcement, the EPA stated it intended to finalize the reversal of its previous standards for the four PFAS chemicals and the compliance timeline in Spring 2026.
Arguments in Favor of Proposed Rollbacks
Some argue that states may struggle to adhere to the timelines set in previous federal regulations by the Biden-Harris administration. Extending the compliance date from 2029 to 2031 would give them extra time. Alan Robertson, the Executive Director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, highlighted the infeasibility of implementing new standards quickly, stating, “With the current compliance date of 2029, states and water systems are struggling with the timeframes to complete the pilot testing, development of construction plans, and building the necessary treatment improvements. EPA’s proposed extension of the compliance date and increased technical assistance will address the number of systems that would be out of compliance in 2029 due to not being able to complete all of these tasks on time.”
Others note the significant cost to comply with the federal rule from the Biden-Harris administration. In 2024, the EPA estimated that it would cost $1.5 billion per year to adhere to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. This estimation includes “[m]onitoring, communicating with customers, and if necessary, obtaining new or additional sources of water or installing and maintaining treatment technologies.” According to a New York Times article, utilities companies argued it could cost twice the EPA’s estimation, and that the public would have to shoulder increased water prices as a result. At the 2025 Legislative Summit in Boston, some session speakers argued that many utilities and drinking water systems do not have the funds or trained workforce to properly address PFAS contamination.
Arguments Against Proposed Rollbacks
A common argument against the EPA’s September 2025 proposal is that it would be illegal for the EPA to remove the previous regulations and standards for PFAS chemicals. The Safe Drinking Water Act, passed by Congress in 1974, has an explicit provision against backsliding. A section of the act reads, “Any revision of a national primary drinking water regulation shall be promulgated in accordance with this section, except that each revision shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons.” In other words, future revisions should only maintain or strengthen previous water regulations, not weaken them.
In addition to questions about legal viability, stakeholders feel that industry groups are being prioritized over public health. In response to the rollbacks, President of the Environmental Working Group Ken Cook said, “This is a betrayal of public health at the highest level. You can’t make America healthy while allowing toxic chemicals to flow freely from our taps. The EPA is caving to chemical industry lobbyists and pressure by the water utilities, and in doing so, it’s sentencing millions of Americans to drink contaminated water for years to come.”
Future Outlook
Looking to the future, traditional PFAS usage in non-essential products is likely to decrease significantly by 2035. PFAS alternatives such as silicon-based materials, hydrocarbon technologies, and novel polymer systems are experiencing “rapid growth, with innovative solutions emerging across multiple sectors.” Water treatment methods are also likely to expand with technological innovation. By 2035, arguments regarding availability of PFAS alternatives and treatment options may shift depending on the effectiveness of future innovations.