What this map shows — and why it matters

The map shows three distinct levels of PFAS drinking water protection across the United States. The division isn’t just political — it reflects years of decisions at the state level about how seriously to take the science on forever chemicals.

Green: Enforceable state MCLs in place

Ten states — Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin — have their own legally enforceable maximum contaminant levels for PFAS in drinking water. These states don’t just rely on the federal rule. Their utilities face real, enforceable obligations right now, not in 2031.

Several go further than federal requirements in meaningful ways. Massachusetts covers six PFAS compounds at 20 ppt combined. Michigan covers seven compounds — its PFNA limit of 6 ppt is stricter than the federal 10 ppt standard, and its broad compound coverage means Michigan utilities face enforceable obligations on PFAS that have no federal MCL at all. Rhode Island’s MCL of 20 ppt combined for six PFAS has been in force since September 2024. Vermont has proposed zero-ppt maximum contaminant level goals for its covered compounds.

Amber: Partial action — guidance levels, advisories, or legislation in progress

A large group of states are moving — but haven’t crossed the finish line. This includes states with health advisories and notification levels (California, Minnesota, Oregon), states where legislation passed in 2025 but implementing rules haven’t yet been published (Illinois, Florida, Virginia), and states with proposed MCLs that are still in the regulatory pipeline (Connecticut, Ohio, Washington, Georgia).

Delaware falls into this group. Its 2025 law (SB 72) requires the state Division of Public Health to create a public PFAS transparency website and mandates utilities to notify customers when PFAS exceeds threshold values — the values used are the federal EPA MCLs. Delaware has not independently enacted stricter or separately enforceable state limits. California’s AB 794, which would direct the State Water Board to establish emergency PFAS regulations at least as protective as the federal 2024 rule, was advancing through the legislature as of March 2026 but had not been signed into law.

North Carolina is a significant case in this group. The Cape Fear River Basin — downstream of the Chemours chemical plant — is where the GenX PFAS compound was first identified in public drinking water. Despite being ground zero for one of the most documented PFAS contamination cases in the country, North Carolina has still not enacted enforceable MCLs as of March 2026.

Red: Federal protection only

These states — predominantly in the South and Midwest — rely entirely on the federal PFOA/PFOS rule. That means their water utilities won’t be legally required to meet PFAS limits until 2031 at the earliest, following the compliance deadline extension announced by the EPA in May 2025.

Texas is the starkest example. The EWG database records more than 113 PFAS detections across Texas water systems. Five separate legislative bills aimed at establishing state-level PFAS protections have failed in the Texas legislature. With an estimated 26 million people served by public water systems in Texas, the gap between contamination evidence and regulatory action is significant.

The federal picture in 2026

The EPA’s 2024 rule set MCLs of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS. Those limits remain in force as of March 2026. In May 2025, the EPA announced its intent to rescind MCLs for four other PFAS — PFHxS, PFNA, GenX (HFPO-DA), and the Hazard Index for PFBS mixtures — and to extend the PFOA/PFOS compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031.

The courts have twice blocked EPA’s efforts to remove the four additional MCLs. On January 21, 2026, the DC Circuit denied the EPA’s request to summarily vacate those rules, finding the merits were not clear enough to warrant immediate action. On March 19, 2026, the same court denied a second EPA motion — this time to sever and stay challenges to the four Index PFAS MCLs pending administrative rescission proceedings. All six MCLs remain technically in force while litigation and EPA rulemaking proceed on parallel tracks.

The result: states with their own MCLs offer residents substantially more protection than the federal baseline, both in terms of which compounds are covered and when utilities must comply.

Data sources: BCLP PFAS State-by-State Drinking Water Regulations (January 2026 update) · Safer States PFAS tracker · ASTHO State PFAS Legislative Update (July 2025) · ALL4 State PFAS Regulatory Update (March 2025) · U.S. EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation · EWG Tap Water Database · Harvard EELP PFAS Litigation Tracker (March 2026). This page is updated periodically as state regulations change. Last updated: March 2026.