Wisconsin enacted legislation in April 2026 that, in part, opens access to money idling in a PFAS trust fund since 2023. Beyond creating new grant programs and conditions for sewage sludge permits and directing the use of funds, the legislation creates a series of PFAS-specific liability exemptions under Wisconsin’s spills law. This article discusses the new legislation — focusing on the liability exemptions — and compares it to approaches taken in other Great Lakes states.

Introduction to PFAS

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large class of human-made compounds used in numerous consumer and industrial products since the 1950s because of their resistance to water, oil, and heat.^[1] Widespread use and environmental persistence mean that these compounds are now found in drinking water, soil, food, and human blood.^[2] The chemicals are found almost ubiquitously in the environment, including in significant water resources such as the Great Lakes.^[3] PFAS pose a risk to human health: Research has shown high levels of PFAS may increase the risk of cancer, thyroid disease, and pregnancy complications.^[4]

Many manufacturers, in combination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), voluntarily phased out the production and use of two PFAS compounds from 2000 to 2015.^[5] Since then, the EPA has taken a variety of actions to address PFAS contamination, including the release of an action plan in 2019.^[6] Individual states, including Wisconsin, have also begun to exercise regulatory authority to remediate the widespread effects of PFAS contamination.

Regulatory History in Wisconsin

Wisconsin has grappled with its own set of challenges regarding PFAS contamination. PFAS was found in soil, private wells, and groundwater in the Marinette and Peshtigo areas in 2017.^[7] In 2019, PFAS was found in a municipal well in the town of Campbell on French Island, leading to a significant disruption of access to clean drinking water.^[8] In response to these and other cases, Wisconsin followed actions taken at the federal level and in 2019 created the PFAS Coordinating Council, now known as the Wisconsin PFAS Action Council (WisPAC).^[9] WisPAC developed a nonbinding PFAS action plan with recommended actions for the state in 2020.^[10]

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) began more explicitly and publicly asserting authority over PFAS contamination in 2019 under the state’s spills law, codified in Wis. Stat. chapter 292. The spills law requires anyone who causes, possesses, or controls a hazardous substance discharge to report the discharge and take necessary actions to restore the environment. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has interpreted this statute as a strict-liability statute — meaning a party is liable whether they knew about or caused the discharge^[11] — though the statute contains several liability exemptions. These exemptions include local governmental units that acquire contaminated property through involuntary measures, a person who discharges within a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit, and law enforcement or fire departments that discharge hazardous substances in carrying out public safety.^[12]

The DNR published an interim decision in 2019, offering limited liability for voluntary PFAS reporting. The agency later clarified that PFAS and other emerging contaminants can be hazardous substances under the spills law in a “blanket” letter to responsible parties. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging these actions as illegally promulgated rules. In 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the DNR communications were legitimate guidance documents and that the DNR had authority to regulate PFAS as a hazardous substance.^[13]

The state’s efforts to regulate PFAS continued, and in 2023 the Wisconsin Legislature created a $125 million PFAS trust fund.^[14] However, releasing this money required passing a separate bill or having the budget committee act independently to transfer the funds.^[15]

In 2024, the legislature passed a bill to release the funds and direct them through grant programs.^[16] Various environmental organizations opposed the bill and asked the governor to veto it, while industry groups supported the bill.^[17] Governor Tony Evers vetoed the bill because of concerns that it would not hold polluters accountable and would limit DNR authority.^[18] As a result, the money designated for the PFAS trust fund was not released until the parties reached a compromise in early 2026.

Wisconsin Legislation Catalyzing PFAS Remediation Funding

In April 2026, the legislature enacted two bills to address PFAS contamination. 2025 Wis. Act 200 releases $133 million (grown from the original $125 million) from the state’s PFAS fund. 2025 Wis. Act 201 makes several changes, including establishing and expanding grant programs, imposing new permitting and monitoring requirements for sewage sludge, and creating new liability exemptions under the spills law.

Act 201 creates two new grant programs: a community PFAS grant program to provide municipalities with financial assistance to address PFAS contamination, and an airport and industrial possessor grant program that provides funds to help entities restore the environment.^[19] Additionally, the act expands eligibility and maximum reimbursement under the well compensation grant program.^[20] In anticipation of these new grant programs, the DNR started hiring staff to administer the grants.^[21]

The legislation also authorizes the DNR to independently initiate response and remedial actions at any site contaminated with PFAS, even when no responsible party has been identified.^[22] These actions may include investigation, sampling, monitoring, removal treatment, or other long-term cleanup measures. With this new authority, the DNR can address contamination more quickly, given that identifying responsible parties for PFAS contamination can be a time-consuming and difficult process.

An addition to the act establishes new requirements for sewage sludge land application permits. The DNR must impose permit limits or conditions for PFAS if the average of two samples shows that the combination of two PFAS compounds is above 20 micrograms per kilogram. The DNR also must issue a new general permit that applies PFAS monitoring conditions to landspreading permits that contain no PFAS conditions.^[23]

One of the most significant aspects of Act 201 is the creation of several PFAS-specific liability exemptions under the spills law.

Liability Exemptions and Their Limits

One of the most significant aspects of Act 201 is the creation of several PFAS-specific liability exemptions.^[24] However, the DNR retains the authority to access an exempt party’s property for activities conducted under the spills law.^[25]

The newly exempt parties include:

• Owners of land used for agricultural or residential purposes, or commercial property owners where PFAS-contaminated wastewater or industrial waste was spread, if spreading was conducted pursuant to a license or permit;

• Owners of industrial property if (1) the person is responsible solely because the person possesses PFAS that were discharged on the property, (2) the discharge of PFAS was caused by the landspreading of PFAS-contaminated wastewater or industrial waste, and (3) the person did not cause the discharge of PFAS;

• A publicly owned or operated fire department that used PFAS in response to an emergency or training in compliance with regulations;

• A person who owns, leases, manages, or contracts for property where PFAS contamination did not originate; and

• A person holding a valid water-discharge permit with respect to PFAS discharged in compliance with permit conditions or limits. This exemption also applies to a person covered by a new general permit — created by the act — relating to the land application of sewage sludge.

However, the legislation expressly states that the exemptions do not apply to the owner of a business or entity that:

• Owns or operates an industrial or manufacturing facility that has used or is using PFAS in industrial or manufacturing processes or operations,

• Owns or operates a commercial facility that has used or is using PFAS in its processes or operations and the commercial facility caused a discharge, or

• Conducts or has conducted permitted landspreading of industrial wastes.

These exemptions reflect legislative intent to protect parties that acted in good faith or innocent parties who did not directly cause PFAS contamination and to uphold a “polluter pays” principle. Exemptions can be grouped into three main categories: (1) parties that spread PFAS-contaminated waste under valid licenses or permits; (2) passive recipients of contamination; and (3) specific entities operating within an established compliance framework, such as fire departments or municipal landfills. These exemptions underscore that businesses with a history of PFAS use in manufacturing and other operations remain targets of liability. The scope of the exemptions is notable because other Great Lakes states have not widely adopted similar PFAS-specific carveouts.

The legislation also authorizes the DNR to independently initiate response and remedial actions at any site contaminated with PFAS, even when no responsible party has been identified.

Comparison to Other States

Wisconsin’s new liability framework introduced under Act 201 is unique in comparison to other Great Lakes states that have established PFAS regulatory measures. Michigan, one of the first states to establish cleanup criteria for PFAS, classifies PFAS as a hazardous substance.^[26] Michigan’s cleanup law establishes some traditional liability exemptions, including an “innocent-landowner” exemption. Under this defense, an owner or operator may avoid liability if a release was caused solely by “[a]n act or omission of a third party other than an employee or agent of the person or a person in a contractual relationship existing either directly or indirectly with a person who is liable.”^[27] However, Michigan has not adopted any PFAS-specific exemptions comparable to those in Wisconsin, and the state retains broad authority to impose investigation and remediation obligations on responsible parties.

Minnesota similarly considers PFAS a hazardous substance based on its properties.^[28] Like Michigan, Minnesota’s cleanup law provides broad statutory defenses to liability, including exemptions for third-party acts or omissions and releases subject to certain permits and regulatory standards.^[29] However, Minnesota has not created PFAS-specific liability exemptions comparable to those in Wisconsin.

These states’ funding structures also differ from Wisconsin’s. Michigan does not have a centralized PFAS fund. Instead, starting in 2017 and 2018, Michigan’s government has widely distributed funds across agencies, remediation efforts, and budget cycles. In 2023, the Michigan Legislature appropriated some of its largest amounts, including $37 million to the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy to address PFAS contamination in small or disadvantaged communities, in addition to a $100 million appropriation for contaminated site cleanup, which may be used to address PFAS investigation or mitigation, among other actions. In the same budget, the Michigan Legislature granted the Department of Health and Human Services $20 million for PFAS and environmental contamination responses.^[30] Michigan has also relied in part on settlement funds earned through PFAS litigation to address industrially caused contamination.^[31]

Minnesota has no centralized PFAS trust fund comparable to Wisconsin’s. Like Michigan, the Minnesota Legislature has spread funds across budgets, agencies, and priorities. In 2023, the Minnesota Legislature designated $4 million to implement the state’s PFAS action plan, in addition to $25 million for grants to support the Pollution Control Agency’s investigation and treatment of PFAS in public water. The budget also set aside $780,000 for the Department of Health to fund new PFAS rulemakings.^[32] Minnesota significantly supported response efforts with an $850 million settlement with 3M; $720 million of the settlement was set aside to support drinking water and natural resource projects in the state.^[33]

Wisconsin’s legislative framework reflects a distinct choice within the Great Lakes states. Unlike Michigan and Minnesota, Wisconsin has adopted PFAS-specific liability exemptions to protect passive receivers of contamination and those operating under valid permits and procedures. While these exemptions protect innocent landowners and those acting in good faith, Wisconsin’s new liability framework may create practical challenges for future remediation and cost recovery. Additionally, Wisconsin has focused its budgetary efforts on creating one PFAS trust fund, instead of spreading funds across budget years and agencies as in Michigan and Minnesota. Wisconsin’s current reliance on a single PFAS-specific funding source might have negative long-term implications in the event of insufficient funding or debate over access to and best use of the trust. Although the $133 million appropriated in the PFAS fund is a substantial investment, the funds may be depleted relatively quickly given the growing number of contamination sites and need for improved infrastructure across various industries. In contrast, Michigan and Minnesota’s funding structures could provide greater longevity and adaptability.

Conclusion

Wisconsin’s passage of 2025 Wis. Act 200 and 2025 Wis. Act 201 allowed the release of crucial and overdue monetary support for both the DNR and frontline communities around the state affected by PFAS contamination. Creating new liability exemptions under the spills law raises questions about the long-term implementation and scope of this keystone Wisconsin law, although the legislation generally reinforces the principle that polluters should bear responsibility for contamination.

Because Wisconsin’s approach is unique compared to other states, the effects of the new exemptions will not be fully understood until they are applied. The delayed passage of Acts 200 and 201, along with this comparison of PFAS funding approaches in neighbor states, highlight balance-of-power concerns among the different governmental players responsible for addressing the complex issue of PFAS contamination and show that relying on a single monetary fund may reduce Wisconsin’s ability to nimbly address contamination in the long term.

Endnotes

[1] Wis. Dep’t of Health Servs., Chemicals: Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Substances (last revised Aug. 10, 2026), https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm. ^

[2] U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, PFAS Explained, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/final-virtual-pfas-explainer-508.pdf (last visited Sept. 6, 2026). ^

[3] Christy Remucal, PFAS are Turning Up in the Great Lakes, Putting Fish and Water Supplies at Risk – Here’s How They Get There, The Conversation (Jan. 28, 2026), https://theconversation.com/pfas-are-turning-up-in-the-great-lakes-putting-fish-and-water-supplies-at-risk-heres-how-they-get-there-271489. ^

[4] Chemicals: Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Substances, supra note 1. ^

[5] U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, EPA/822/R-22/004, Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) CASRN 1763-23-1 at 3 (2022), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/interim-pfos-2022.pdf; U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program (last updated Feb. 26, 2026), https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program. ^

[6] U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, EPA 823R18004, EPA’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan (2019), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-02/documents/pfas_action_plan_021319_508compliant_1.pdf; U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, Key EPA Actions to Address PFAS (July 29, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions-address-pfas. ^

[7] Wis. DNR, PFAS Contamination in the Marinette and Peshtigo Area, https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/PFAS/Marinette.html (last visited Sept. 6, 2026). ^

[8] PFAS Contamination in the Town of Campbell and French Island, Wis. Dep’t of Nat. Res., https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/PFAS/Campbell.html (last visited Sept. 6, 2026). ^

[9] Wis. Exec. Order No. 40 (Aug. 22, 2019), https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/EO/EO%2040%20-%20PFAS.pdf. ^

[10] Wis. PFAS Action Council (WisPAC), Wisconsin PFAS Action Plan (Dec. 2020), https://widnr.widen.net/content/d4vyg9qqwj/pdf/EM_PFASActionPlan.pdf. ^

[11] State v. Mauthe, 123 Wis. 2d 288, 366 N.W.2d 871 (1985); State v. Chrysler Outboard Corp., 219 Wis. 2d 130, 580 N.W.2d 203 (1998). ^

[12] Wis. Stat. § 292.11(9). ^

[13] Jay D. Jerde, Wisconsin’s New Drinking Water PFAS Rule – On Tap or Turned Off?, State Bar of Wis., InsideTrack Weekly (Mar. 18, 2026), https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=18&Issue=11&ArticleID=31509; Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com., Inc. v. Wisconsin Nat. Res. Bd., 2025 WI 26, 416 Wis. 2d 561, 21 N.W.3d 718. ^

[14] 2023 Wis. Act 19. ^

[15] Wis. Legis. Council, Joint Committee on Finance Authority to Transfer Appropriated Funds (2024), https://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/27/hesselbein/media/apjnbxu0/28hesselbein_ah_sm.pdf. ^

[16] Wis. S.B. 312, 2023-2024 Legislature, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/proposals/sb312. ^

[17] Request to Veto Senate Bill 312; Continued Call to Release PFAS Trust Fund, Apr. 4, 2024 (copy of email sent from Midwest Environmental Advocates and other organizations to Gov. Tony Evers), https://midwestadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/SB-312-Veto-Request-2024-04-04.pdf; Hope Kirwan, Senate Bill on PFAS Draws Both Support, Critique from Environmental, Industry Groups, Wis. Pub. Radio (June 5, 2023), https://www.wpr.org/environment/wisconsin-senate-bill-pfas-draws-support-critique-environmental-industry-groups. ^

[18] Tony Evers, Governor of Wis., Veto Message for 2023 Senate Bill 312 (Apr. 9, 2024), https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/WIGOV/2024/04/09/file_attachments/2841347/SB%20312%20Veto%20Message.pdf. ^

[19] 2025 Wis. Act 201, §§ 20–21. See Olivia Messerges, Wisconsin Addresses PFAS Contamination and Creates Exemptions, State Bar of Wis., Env’t Law Blog (June 10, 2026), https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/Pages/General-Article.aspx?ArticleID=31626, for a further breakdown of the grant programs. ^

[20] 2025 Wis. Act 201, § 14. ^

[21] Wis. DNR, PFAS, https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/PFAS (last visited Sept. 6, 2026). ^

[22] 2025 Wis. Act 201, § 25. ^

[23] 2025 Wis. Act 201, § 16. Although it is not the focus of this article, the DNR has issued an updated “Interim Strategy for Land Application of Biosolids and Industrial Sludges Containing PFAS” that incorporates the requirements set in the legislation. See Wis. DNR, Interim Strategy for Land Application of Biosolids and Industrial Sludge Containing PFAS (July 2, 2026), https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/PFAS/WisconsinInterimPFASBiosolidsAndIndustrialSludgeStrategy.pdf. ^

[24] 2025 Wis. Act 201, § 19. ^

[25] See Messerges, supra note 19. ^

[26] Nick Coulson & Kyle Knowinski, PFAS in the Courts: What’s Happened? What’s Next?, Mich. Bar J. (June 2022), https://www.michbar.org/journal/details/PFAS-in-the-courts-Whats-happened-Whats-next?articleid=4448. ^

[27] Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.20126 (2026). ^

[28] Minn. Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota’s PFAS Blueprint 126 (Feb. 2021), https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-gen1-22.pdf. ^

[29] Minn. Stat. § 115B.04 (2025). ^

[30] Mich. Act 119 (2023), https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0119.pdf. ^

[31] Attorney General Nessel Secures Settlements with Past and Present Operators of White Pigeon Paper Mill to Address PFAS Contamination, Mich. PFAS Action Response Team (Sept. 19, 2025), https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse/about/news/2025/09/19/attorney-general-nessel-secures-settlements-with-past-and-present-operators-of-white-pigeon. ^

[32] H.F. 2310, 93rd Leg. (Minn. 2024). ^

[33] Minnesota 3M PFAS Settlement, https://3msettlement.state.mn.us/ (last visited Sept. 6, 2026). ^