As the Trump administration delays regulations on “forever chemicals” that pollute reservoirs, rivers and aquifers nationwide, California officials say they are unsure what the consequences will be for an estimated 1.5 million Californians served by utilities with contaminated sources of drinking water.
With uncertainty over when regulations on some of the most common of these cancer-causing pollutants, called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS, will take effect in California, lawmakers are floating alternative plans to remove them from the state’s tap water.
Among several forever chemical-related bills in Congress is one that would tax PFAS manufacturers to help utilities pay for expensive treatment technologies. State legislation that could have led to the ban of pesticides containing PFAS has been watered down by lawmakers, but environmental advocates still see the bill as an important first step.
“The corporations that contaminated our water rarely face accountability. My bill changes that by making them cover the cost of cleaning it up,” U.S. Rep. Linda Sánchez, an author of the federal bill, said in an email to Capital & Main. Pico Rivera and Downey are two cities in Sánchez’s Los Angeles-area district that are grappling with PFAS-contaminated water sources.
There are nearly 15,000 different PFAS chemicals, used in an array of everyday items like clothing, food packaging and cookware, as well as in fire-fighting foams, pesticides and many industrial processes. Regulators have found them around hundreds of landfills, airports, military bases and industrial sites across the state. Because they’re highly soluble, once they leach into the water table they’re extremely difficult to remove — and they can take thousands of years to break down. The chemicals can enter the body through contaminated water and accumulate over time.
Nearly everyone in the U.S. has these chemicals in their blood, and exposure to some of the most studied PFAS chemicals has been linked to cancer, liver disease, immune system disruption and other chronic health problems.
These chemicals are nearly ubiquitous in tap water. According to the consumer advocacy organization Environmental Working Group, 165 million Americans drink PFAS-laced tap water.
Under a plan established under the Biden administration, federal drinking water standards for perfluorooctanoic and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOA and PFOS), two of the most common forever chemicals, were set to be enforced in 2029. But under President Donald Trump, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has moved to delay those protections by offering water systems an opt-out until 2031. The EPA is also rescinding regulatory drinking water limits for four other forever chemicals.
Daniel Newton, assistant deputy director of the California Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water, said state regulators are unsure whether impacted water systems in California would be eligible for the two-year delay — and, if they are, whether California would “allow that extension or not,” Newton said.
Of California’s 2,363 public water systems that have been tested since 2024, 466 had levels of either PFOA or PFOS above the federal regulatory limit, according to the water board. California requires water systems to notify the public if PFAS levels reach a certain threshold. Some systems have already begun treating or blending the water with clean sources to make it safer to drink.
Without federal drinking water limits for other PFAS substances, California has started the years-long process of adopting its own rules for one commonly used such chemical called PFHxS, which has been detected since 2024 in nearly 400 systems above the state notification level. Newton said the long-term goal in California is for these chemicals to be regulated “as a class” rather than through “individual” chemicals.
But environmental health advocates want California regulators to move faster.
“We’ve been monitoring these chemicals since 2019. That means that by 2029, we’ll have spent 10 years preparing,” said Andria Ventura, legislative and policy director with the nonprofit Clean Water Action. As such, she added, “California regulators should be more protective than the federal government by not delaying implementation.”
Some systems, especially smaller cash-strapped utilities, recommend a more cautious approach.
“It could potentially be advantageous to anybody dealing with this to wait,” said Carlos Quintero, general manager of the San Diego County-based Sweetwater Authority, pointing to high treatment costs and the evolution of new better treatment technologies.
Roughly 65% of Sweetwater Authority’s 200,000 customers live in areas designated by state agencies as suffering a combination of economic, health, and environmental burdens.. The utility is exploring different PFAS treatment technologies, the cheapest coming in at roughly $50 million. Quintero estimates ongoing operational and maintenance costs for the system alone could result in water rate increases of around 6%.
Rather than keep treating contaminated water, some lawmakers and advocacy groups want to remove the problem at the source.
In California, AB 1603 would for the first time require that pesticides be categorized as containing PFAS chemicals by the state, and their use to be reported to authorities. According to the Environmental Working Group, 37% of California grown nonorganic fruits and vegetables have PFAS-laced pesticide residues on them, while regulators found PFAS pesticides in roughly half of all surface water and sediment samples taken.
Under pressure from agricultural interests, lawmakers earlier this year stripped language from the legislation that would have eventually banned PFAS-based pesticides in California. But Susan Little, Environmental Working Group’s California legislative director, hopes this bill “sets the stage” for an outright ban in the future.
Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have banned the sale of PFAS-laden cookware and other products, arguing it would restrict the availability of affordable cookware.
Many impacted states, municipalities and water systems have sought financial relief through lawsuits against chemical manufacturers like 3M and DuPont. Just this week, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued major PFAS chemical manufacturers alleging they had deceived the public about human exposure risks and threats to the environment. But for the most part, the public continues to bear the brunt of cleanup costs through rate increases and taxpayer-funded programs.
Even so, these pots of money “are not anywhere near what the actual cost of compliance is going to be,” said Ian Lyle, director of federal relations for the Association of California Water Agencies. The Orange County Water District alone estimates a cost to the county of $1.8 billion over 30 years to treat PFAS.
With the idea of alleviating the burden on water systems and the taxpayer, Rep. Sánchez’s federal bill would establish a 45% tax on the manufacturing of PFAS to provide a tax credit of up to 25% for public and private water agencies.
“I expect it will be enough to cover the direct pay credit that will fund water cleanup efforts for both public and private water municipalities,” Sánchez said.
Copyright 2026 Capital & Main
