This article is part of MACo’s Policy Deep Dive series, where expert policy analysts explore and explain the top county policy issues of the day. A new article is added each week – read all of MACo’s Policy Deep Dives.

Since the mid-20th century, PFAS—synthetic substances often referred to as “forever chemicals”—have been promoted as revolutionary materials. These chemicals are used in thousands of products, from everyday household items to critical components of modern infrastructure. Growing scientific evidence now shows that despite their versatility, PFAS degrade extremely slowly. Over time, their accumulation in the environment can lead to a wide range of serious health impacts. A key issue in ongoing discussions in Annapolis has been how best to manage these persistent chemicals. In this week’s deep dive, we will explore the latest developments surrounding PFAS and examine what the coming short-, medium-, and long-term responses might look like.

Background

Longtime readers of Conduit Street will recall that last spring, we published a deep dive titled PFAS: What Are They? Why Do They Matter? What’s Next? This article provided a detailed explanation of PFAS and outlined their significance for county governments.

PFAS, an acronym for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are chemicals valued for their waterproof and nonstick properties. They are commonly found in a wide range of uses, including in raincoats, food packaging, water bottles, nonstick cookware, carpets, firefighting foam, pipes, cosmetics, and more.

However, the very characteristics that make PFAS useful also contribute to their potential hazards. These substances degrade very slowly, allowing them to accumulate over time in the environment and within living organisms, including humans. Given their widespread presence in consumer products, most individuals have likely been exposed to PFAS and may have measurable levels of these substances in their bodies.

Greater Focus in Maryland

PFAS has grown into increasing focus in every legislative session over the past roughly half decade. In 2022 the General Assembly passed a policy banning the substance in firefighting foam and rugs. During the 2024 session, MACo helped pass SB 956/HB 1153- Environment – Water Pollution Control – Protecting State Waters From PFAS Pollution (Protecting State Waters From PFAS Pollution Act), which required “significant industrial users” to mitigate for contamination in their wastewater before it may enter any wastewater treatment infrastructure.

The recent 2025 legislative session featured extensive debate, particularly regarding the chemical’s presence in sewage sludge used as fertilizer. HB 909 / SB 732, introduced by Delegate Stein and Senator Love, sought to limit PFAS concentrations in sewage sludge prior to land application. The bills underwent significant negotiation and multiple rounds of proposed amendments.

A key concern for local governments was the perception that the legislation would penalize county infrastructure —such as wastewater treatment facilities— that passively receive PFAS rather than going after producers and users. County and municipal officials cited Maryland’s limited testing capacity and the high costs of mitigation as major challenges.

Several proposals would have required wastewater treatment facilities to massively overhaul their operations, including installing new storage and mitigation technologies. This requirement would have amounted to an unfunded mandate costing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars per facility and would likely result in substantial increases to consumers’ water bills.

Ultimately, the legislation did not pass in 2025, but it is expected to reemerge in some form during the 2026 session.

Shifting Federal Sands

The federal government’s approach to PFAS has shifted over the past year. Previously, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had placed emphasis on emerging scientific evidence linking PFAS to serious health risks and was gradually moving toward requiring mitigation measures. In April 2024, the agency issued the first-ever enforceable drinking water standard for PFAS and designated two forms of the chemical as hazardous substances—steps toward federal mitigation and remediation requirements.

More recently, in May 2025, the EPA partially rolled back some of its earlier efforts to limit PFAS exposure. Regulations restricting levels of PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS, and HFPO-DA were rescinded and are now under reconsideration. However, the agency has maintained regulations limiting PFOA and PFOS, two of the most studied and concerning PFAS compounds.

Looking Ahead

In the short to medium term, the federal government will likely take a more measured role in guiding the conversation around PFAS mitigation. Recent developments suggest that counties should increasingly look to Annapolis and local initiatives, where both state legislators and grassroots organizations are stepping forward to continue efforts to reduce public exposure to these chemicals.

A key challenge will be determining how future policies can be effectively funded in the absence of substantial state and federal investment. Addressing the scope and cost of PFAS contamination—likely comparable to that of a significant natural disaster—will require resources beyond what most county governments can manage on their own. Without broader support, there is a risk that local governments could face difficult choices, potentially resulting in higher utility costs for residents or the defunding of other public policy priorities.

Read about Lessons From California Local Governments’ PFAS Removal Strategy