With EPA extending federal PFOA/PFOS compliance to 2031 and proposing to rescind Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX, state per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) standards are now the only backstop for roughly half the country. As of April 2026, at least 11 states have enforceable PFAS standards in drinking water, and four of them — New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York — set limits stricter than the federal 4 parts per trillion (ppt) in at least one compound. The rest of the country relies entirely on the federal rule, which is itself being rewritten.
The State-by-State Landscape
Eleven states have moved faster than EPA to regulate PFAS in public drinking water, and they have taken very different approaches. Some regulate individual compounds with specific MCLs, some regulate the sum of a defined set, and at least one uses non-enforceable action levels rather than MCLs. The variation matters: a utility in Boston reports a single PFAS6 sum, while a utility in Lansing must stay under seven distinct limits.
| State | PFOA MCL | PFOS MCL | Other PFAS | Effective | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Jersey | 14 ppt | 13 ppt | PFNA 13 ppt | 2018–2020 | First state with an enforceable PFAS MCL (PFNA in 2018) |
| Massachusetts | PFAS6 sum: 20 ppt | — | Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA, PFDA | 2020 | Unique sum-of-six approach |
| Michigan | 8 ppt | 16 ppt | PFNA 6 ppt, PFHxS 51 ppt, GenX 370 ppt, PFBS 420 ppt, PFHxA 400,000 ppt | 2020 | Most granular state rule (7 compounds) |
| New York | 10 ppt | 10 ppt | — | 2020 | Simple two-compound rule |
| Vermont | Sum 20 ppt | Same | Sum of 5: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, PFNA | 2019 | Sum approach |
| New Hampshire | 12 ppt | 15 ppt | PFNA 11 ppt, PFHxS 18 ppt | 2020 | Set by statute (HB 1264) |
| Pennsylvania | 14 ppt | 18 ppt | — | 2023 | Superseded by stricter federal rule in 2024 |
| Wisconsin | 70 ppt combined | Same | PFOA + PFOS combined | 2022 | Less stringent than federal; 2026 rulemaking underway to align |
| Maine | Sum 20 ppt | — | Sum of 6 PFAS | 2021 (interim), rule in progress | Strictest companion rules on biosolids and products |
| Washington | Action level 10 ppt | Action level 15 ppt | Plus PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS action levels | 2022 | State Action Levels, not enforceable MCLs |
| Minnesota | Health-based values | Health-based values | Health-risk limits for 4+ PFAS | Advisory | Not enforceable drinking water MCLs |
New Jersey was first across the line, setting an enforceable MCL of 13 ppt for PFNA in 2018, followed by 14 ppt PFOA and 13 ppt PFOS in 2020. Michigan’s 2020 rule is the most comprehensive, covering seven compounds at values based on the state’s 2019 Health-Based Drinking Water Value recommendations. Massachusetts took a different route entirely — a single 20 ppt cap on the sum of six PFAS compounds, known as PFAS6. Vermont uses a similar sum-of-five approach at 20 ppt. New York’s two-compound rule at 10 ppt each is the simplest on the list but still 2.5× stricter than the federal 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS.
Pennsylvania adopted 14 ppt PFOA and 18 ppt PFOS in January 2023 — numbers that were ahead of the federal government at the time but were superseded by EPA’s stricter 4 ppt rule in April 2024. Wisconsin’s 70 ppt combined standard, set in 2022, tracked EPA’s old lifetime health advisory and is now being revised downward to match the 4 ppt federal limit. Washington and Minnesota publish non-enforceable values: Washington’s State Action Levels (SALs) require monitoring and public notification when exceeded but are not MCLs; Minnesota issues health-based guidance values used primarily for site cleanup rather than water utility compliance.
States Going Further: Source Control and Bans
Drinking water standards are only one piece of the state PFAS picture. The same handful of states that moved early on MCLs have also moved hardest on source control — banning PFAS in consumer products, firefighting foam, and land-applied biosolids.
- Maine enacted LD 1503 in 2021, making it the first state to ban the sale of all products containing intentionally added PFAS effective January 1, 2030, with earlier phase-outs for carpets, rugs, and fabric treatments. Maine also banned land application of PFAS-contaminated biosolids in 2022 after widespread farm contamination forced dairies offline.
- Minnesota passed Amara’s Law in 2023. Starting January 1, 2025, PFAS are prohibited in 11 product categories: carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, children’s products, menstrual products, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture. A broader ban on all intentionally added PFAS takes effect January 1, 2032.
- Washington was the first state to restrict PFAS in class B firefighting foams, banning their use for training on July 1, 2018, and their sale for most uses starting July 1, 2020.
- California has listed PFOA and PFOS under Proposition 65 and banned intentionally added PFAS in food packaging (AB 1200, effective 2023) and cosmetics (AB 2771, effective 2025).
- New York banned intentionally added PFAS in apparel, also effective 2024.
The pattern is consistent: the states leading on upstream source control also tend to have stricter drinking water standards. Maine, Minnesota, Washington, California, and New York appear on both lists. States that have not regulated PFAS in drinking water have, with rare exceptions, not regulated PFAS in products either.
What the Federal Rollback Changes
In May 2025, EPA announced it would keep the 4 ppt MCLs for PFOA and PFOS but push compliance from 2029 to 2031, and rescind the MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and the Hazard Index for mixtures. That proposal is the subject of active litigation — see PFAS regulation rollback for the AWWA lawsuit, the NRDC/Waterkeeper intervention, and the D.C. Circuit case timeline.
For residents of states with their own enforceable PFAS rules, the federal rollback changes very little in practice. New Jersey’s 14 ppt PFOA MCL, Michigan’s 6 ppt PFNA MCL, Massachusetts’s 20 ppt PFAS6 sum, and New York’s 10 ppt PFOA/PFOS limits are all state law and remain in force regardless of what EPA does. In several cases — PFNA in New Jersey and Michigan, PFHxS in Michigan and New Hampshire, GenX in Michigan — the state rules are actually the only enforceable limits those compounds will have if EPA finalizes the rescission.
For residents of states without state PFAS standards — most of the South, the Mountain West, and the Midwest outside Michigan and Wisconsin — the federal rollback matters more. If EPA successfully rescinds the PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX MCLs and the Hazard Index, those compounds will be unregulated in drinking water across roughly 40 states. Monitoring data from UCMR 5 shows detectable levels of several of these compounds in every region (see UCMR 5 PFAS monitoring results), so the absence of a standard does not mean absence of exposure. The April 2024 rule itself is covered in EPA PFAS rule 2024.
Which States Have No State Standard
As of April 2026, the majority of US states rely entirely on federal EPA standards for PFAS in drinking water. Notable gaps include Texas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky. None of these states has an enforceable state-level PFAS MCL distinct from the federal rule.
Several states have rules in progress but not yet enforceable. Virginia’s state health department has been developing PFAS monitoring requirements. Illinois has issued non-enforceable health advisory levels and is working toward rulemaking. Connecticut and Rhode Island have both begun PFAS rulemaking processes. Maine’s state Department of Health and Human Services drafted a rule in 2024 to formalize state MCLs at least as stringent as the federal numbers; that rule is expected to be adopted in 2025 or 2026. Colorado, Oregon, and North Carolina have issued health-based guidance but not enforceable drinking water standards.
If the federal rule is weakened further, residents in these states lose protection for the rescinded compounds entirely. For an overview of which PFAS are of greatest concern and why, see the PFAS contaminant profile and the PFAS in drinking water guide.
What You Can Do
- Check your state’s PFAS policy on the state environmental agency or department of health website. State rules can change faster than federal rules.
- Look up your city’s PFAS detections via WaterVerge city search. City pages flag PFAS hits relative to the federal 4 ppt MCL and, where applicable, the stricter state MCL.
- If you live in a state without stricter PFAS rules, assume federal MCLs are your only protection — and those are contested in court.
- For any detection above 4 ppt, install a certified filter. Three options remove PFAS reliably: reverse osmosis systems (point-of-use, highest rejection), under-sink water filters (point-of-use, carbon-based, NSF 53/P473 certified), or a whole-house water filter (point-of-entry, longer media life).
- Contact state legislators if your state lacks a PFAS standard. The states with enforceable MCLs all got there through state-level action, typically after constituent pressure following a local contamination event.
How WaterVerge Tracks This
WaterVerge pulls PFAS data from UCMR 5 (EPA’s fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, the only comprehensive national PFAS dataset) and SDWIS (the Safe Drinking Water Information System, which holds state-reported compliance data). City pages flag detections relative to both the federal 4 ppt MCL and, where a stricter state MCL applies, the state standard. When a state changes a rule or EPA finalizes the rescission, city pages update on the next data refresh. Search your city.