The designation of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act has placed drinking water and wastewater utilities in a precarious position — potentially forcing them to bear cleanup costs for contaminants they did not create.
To address this issue, bipartisan legislation called the Water Systems PFAS Liability Protection Act of 2025 has been introduced by Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Celeste Maloy (R-Utah). This bill seeks to ensure that water utilities, that legally dispose of PFAS-laden byproducts, are not unfairly held responsible for environmental remediation, shifting the burden back to the true polluters.
In the following Q&A, Municipal Sewer & Water magazine talks to Ken Sansone, an environmental attorney at SL Environmental Law Group. Sansone has spent years holding PFAS polluters accountable and navigating the complexities of CERCLA liability.
MSW: In your view, does this bill provide some meaningful protection for water utilities?
Sansone: The Water Systems PFAS Liability Protection Act provides that agencies following all applicable laws for disposing of PFAS going forward will be protected from CERCLA liability.
MSW: As far as legal effectiveness, do you believe the bill is airtight in exempting water utilities from CERCLA liability if they comply with disposal laws? Or could utilities still face legal risks under certain circumstances or via loopholes?
Sansone: The intention is to protect utilities from CERCLA liability, but only if they’re in compliance with “all applicable laws at the time the activity is carried out.” So violations of state law requirements, or permit conditions, would arguably forfeit this immunity — as would acting with “gross negligence or willful misconduct.” As a practical matter, though, almost all utilities very scrupulously follow state regulatory requirements and permit conditions. If they do that, they should be protected.
MSW: How does this legislation align with existing CERCLA liability principles? Have past legal cases set any precedents that could complicate how liability is assigned under this bill?
Sansone: CERCLA principles are pretty harsh — they hold defendants responsible for releasing hazardous materials even if they had no idea that they were hazardous at the time. This legislation reflects the idea that we shouldn’t hold public agencies to this standard when it comes to PFAS, which is really a special case considering how widely it was used and how long it was in use before regulators or utilities had any reason to believe it was dangerous. CERCLA claims against water and wastewater utilities have historically been pretty rare, but, again, because of the scope of PFAS contamination in both drinking water supplies and wastewater streams, there’s reason for concern.
MSW: If this bill passes, how do you anticipate it will shape future PFAS-related lawsuits?
Sansone: Interestingly, even though the hazardous materials designations for PFOA and PFOS became finalized several months ago, we have seen few if any CERCLA claims based on PFAS, whether against utilities or anyone else. The focus of lawsuits over PFAS contamination has been on the manufacturers of firefighting foam and PFAS-containing compounds used to make other products, and that’s where I’d expect it to remain.
MSW: With inadequate legal protection, what is the worst-case financial scenario for utilities in terms of legal costs and cleanup expenses related to PFAS?
Sansone: Utilities that haven’t brought legal claims against the PFAS manufacturers are missing out on significant sources of potential recovery — nearly $15 billion in settlements has been obtained from just four of those manufacturers for PFAS impacts to public drinking water supplies, and the fight continues against the other manufacturers, as well as for other impacts, including to wastewater and stormwater systems. Without any recovery from the manufacturers, utilities will have to absorb all the treatment costs on their own, and these can be expected to run into the many millions of dollars for just about any utility operating in a state with restrictions on PFAS concentrations in its effluent or sludge.
MSW: Some states have pursued their own PFAS regulations and lawsuits. If this bill passes, could state-level environmental laws still expose utilities to legal action?
Sansone: Yes, as I mentioned, the exception to liability applies only to utilities that comply with “all applicable laws” for handling PFAS, so utilities that don’t do that will expose themselves to CERCLA claims. Keep in mind that the states have been ahead of the federal government in regulating PFAS on both the drinking water and wastewater side, and that state limits can be stricter than federal limits.
MSW: How do you anticipate PFAS manufacturers and other industries will respond if this bill passes?
Sansone: Though, as someone who represents many utilities, I understand the importance of this legislation in helping utilities who have been innocent in their handling of PFAS, at the end of the day it also helps the PFAS manufacturers, who don’t really deserve it, by reducing the universe of potential PFAS liability.
MSW: If you could suggest one or two amendments to strengthen this bill, what would they be?
Sansone: I think that the “all applicable laws” language should be clarified so that utilities can feel confident that, if they’re in compliance with all their regulatory and permitting requirements, they don’t have to worry. Right now, that language is undefined.
It’s also important to remember that, even if this bill passes, utilities will still face significant additional costs from PFAS — when they need to dispose of PFAS-contaminated materials (e.g. sludge, spent drinking water treatment media), they will have to treat them as hazardous substances, which will increase disposal costs.
