Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Legislature advanced two bipartisan bills to address per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Wisconsin.&nbsp; 2025 Assembly Bill 131 (AB 131), as amended, makes a number of changes to state law related to PFAS, including restructuring PFAS liability under Wisconsin’s remediation law, creating multiple PFAS grant and financial assistance programs, and imposing new permitting and monitoring requirements. A companion bill, 2025 Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130), will release more than $130 million in previously allocated funding to address PFAS impacts and fund programs created by AB 131. Governor Tony Evers is expected to sign both bills into law in the coming weeks.

core/paragraph

Currently, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) addresses PFAS contamination primarily through the state’s remediation law (referred to as the “Spills Law”) and existing permitting authority. AB 131 aims to address PFAS contamination by pairing new funding programs with PFAS‑specific liability exemptions and revised regulatory authority.

core/heading

Establishes new PFAS grant programs, including a community PFAS grant program, and an airport and industrial possessor PFAS grant program.

core/list-item

Creates PFAS‑specific exemptions from liability and response obligations under Wisconsin’s Spills Law for defined categories of persons and entities.

Expands eligibility and reimbursement levels under the Well Compensation Grant Program for PFAS‑contaminated wells.

Imposes new permitting and monitoring requirements for land application of sewage sludge containing PFAS.

Provides regulatory flexibility for certain utilities to address PFAS by authorizing limited use of ratepayer funds for PFAS source reduction measures and allowing certain water and sewer utilities to commence projects to respond to PFAS-related public health concerns without approval by the Public Service Commission if proper notice is given.

Provides authority for DNR, or a contracted third party, to begin response and remedial actions at PFAS‑contaminated sites where no responsible party has been identified or where the responsible party qualifies for a PFAS‑specific exemption under the Spills Law.

core/list

PFAS Exemptions Under Wisconsin’s Spills Law

AB 131 creates stand‑alone statutory exemptions under the Spills Law for specified categories of persons and entities. Among those generally exempted by AB 131 from liability and response obligations under the Spills Law with respect to PFAS contamination include:

Persons contracted to spread wastewater or industrial waste contaminated by PFAS if the spreading was conducted in substantial compliance with all applicable permits for non-PFAS substances, and the permit did not address PFAS at the time of spreading.

Owners of agricultural, residential, or commercial property on which PFAS‑contaminated wastewater or industrial waste was spread pursuant to a permit.

Certain “industrial possessors”, defined as persons who 1) are responsible under the Spills Law solely due to possessing PFAS that is discharged on their industrial property, 2) possess the PFAS due to permitted landspreading activities, and 3) did not cause the PFAS discharge. This exemption is limited to remediating PFAS contamination and does not exempt the industrial possessor from taking “immediate” or “interim” actions required by DNR with respect to PFAS.

Publicly owned or operated fire departments that used PFAS in emergency response or training in compliance with applicable regulations.

Municipal waste landfills that disposed of PFAS‑contaminated leachate at publicly owned treatment works and have installed DNR-approved pretreatment for PFAS.

Licensed collection and transportation services or licensed transfer facilities that transfer or dispose of municipal solid waste.

Persons owning, leasing, managing, or contracting property on which PFAS contamination did not originate. This exemption does not apply if the person owns, leases, manages, or contracts the property on which the PFAS discharge originated.

Persons involved in land application of waste from animal product or food processing facilities if the application was conducted in compliance with applicable permits for non-PFAS substances, and the permit did not address PFAS at the time of spreading.

Persons holding valid water discharge permits with respect to PFAS discharged in compliance with permit limits and/or conditions. This exemption also applies to a person covered by the new general permit AB 131 creates relating to the land application of sewage sludge.

The above exemptions do <strong><em>not</em></strong> apply to:

Owners or operators of facilities that used PFAS in industrial or manufacturing processes;

Owners or operators of commercial facilities that have used PFAS in their processes and have caused a discharge; and

Entities that conduct or have conducted permitted landspreading of industrial wastes.

These three limitations to the exemptions do not apply, however, to persons owning or managing property on which PFAS contamination did not originate, persons involved in land application of waste from animal product or food processing facilities under qualifying permits, or persons holding valid water discharge permits with respect to PFAS discharged in compliance with permit limits or conditions.

New Permitting &amp; Monitoring Requirements - Land Application of Sewage Sludge

AB 131 formalizes PFAS permitting requirements for the land application of sewage sludge by moving existing sampling practices into statute and requiring DNR to impose PFAS‑specific permit limitations or conditions where sampling results warrant. Under the bill, DNR must include PFAS limitations or conditions in a sewage sludge spreading permit if the average of two samples shows a combined concentration greater than 20 µg/kg for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). The bill specifies that the DNR must include limitations for PFAS unless an enforcement standard for PFOA and PFOS has been promulgated under Wisconsin’s groundwater protection law, and DNR is authorized to require groundwater monitoring as a permit condition.

The bill directs DNR to issue a statewide general permit within 120 days of the bill’s effective date establishing PFAS monitoring requirements for sewage sludge, including monitoring frequency for sludge spreading activities not already subject to PFAS permit conditions. The bill mandates that the newly issued general permit will remain in effect until all individual permits regulating the land application of sewage sludge include PFAS‑specific limitations or conditions.

Finally, AB 131 requires the DNR to modify individual sewage sludge spreading permits to add PFAS limitations or conditions if sampling conducted under the general permit exceeds the 20 µg/kg PFOA/PFOS threshold.

State Authority to Initiate PFAS Response and Remedial Actions

AB 131 authorizes the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to independently initiate response and remedial actions at PFAS contaminated sites where no responsible party has been identified or where the responsible party qualifies for a PFAS‑specific exemption under the Spills Law. DNR may conduct these actions directly or through a contracted third party and must prioritize sites posing the greatest risk to public health or the environment. This authority allows state-lead cleanup efforts to proceed when cleanup would otherwise be delayed or not occur.

AB 131 provides limited regulatory flexibility for certain water and sewer utilities responding to PFAS‑related public health concerns. The bill allows municipal utilities and metropolitan sewerage districts to use ratepayer funds to cover up to half of the cost of PFAS source‑reduction measures implemented for customers, where those measures are more cost effective than treatment upgrades at the utility’s facility. AB 131 also expands authority for qualifying utilities to begin PFAS response projects without prior approval from the Public Service Commission, provided the utility promptly notifies the Commission, submits the required application within the statutory timeframe, and the project meets specified cost and eligibility criteria.

AB 131 creates a community PFAS grant program administered by DNR to provide financial assistance to municipalities for a wide range of PFAS‑related activities including sampling, treatment, investigation, and response actions. Municipalities must pass authorizing resolutions and provide required matching funds, generally at least 20 percent, with higher matching requirements for certain drinking water projects. DNR is authorized to provide outreach, technical, and administrative assistance to grant recipients.

The bill also authorizes DNR to create a new Airport and Industrial Possessor PFAS Grant Program to assist public‑use airports and qualifying industrial possessors with investigation and response actions. Financial assistance is conditioned on prior notification and consultation with DNR and may be structured in phases, with reimbursement available for eligible expenses upon completion of approved work. DNR must prioritize actions that protect public health and stabilize or contain PFAS discharges.

AB 131 expands eligibility under the Well Compensation Grant Program for PFAS contamination. In addition to private residential wells, eligible applicants include owners and operators of noncommunity water supplies, certain schools, and childcare facilities. The bill establishes tiered reimbursement rates based on household income and sets new maximum reimbursement limits specific to PFAS‑related projects, including well reconstruction, treatment systems, and well abandonment.

While certain entities may benefit from AB 131’s PFAS‑specific exemptions and grant eligibility, PFAS compliance and response obligations will continue to apply in many circumstances, and eligibility will depend heavily on site‑specific facts and regulatory/permitting history.

For industrial and commercial entities, AB 131 recalibrates PFAS risk by narrowing certain liability exposures while simultaneously expanding permitting, monitoring, and compliance requirements. Although the bill provides statutory exemptions for defined categories of persons, those exemptions are limited and do not apply to facilities that used PFAS in industrial or manufacturing processes or caused PFAS discharges. As a result, many industrial operators will continue to face PFAS‑related compliance obligations. Companies should review their operational history, permit coverage, and potential eligibility for grant programs to assess how AB 131 may affect future regulatory obligations and risk allocation.

If you have any questions about how this may impact your business or your regulatory obligations, please contact any of the Michael Best attorneys listed below.

Rows of clear plastic water bottles with blue caps on a production line in a beverage manufacturing facility.

Rows of clear plastic water bottles with blue caps on a production line.

Wisconsin Legislature Advances PFAS Legislative Package to Governor

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Upholds Act 10, Preserving Longstanding Public-Sector Labor Reforms

The Impact of Building the Best: 50 Years of the ABA Forum on Construction Law

The Contract Review Nobody Asks For — And Why I Do It Anyway