Six Months In: What Wisconsin’s Landmark PFAS Law Means for You – and What You Should Be Doing Now – Update from Witte Davis Law

September 21, 2026

Six Months In: What Wisconsin’s Landmark PFAS Law Means for You – and What You Should Be Doing Now

By Edward B. (Ned) Witte and Heather A. Davis

When Governor Evers signed 2025 Wisconsin Act 201 into law on April 6, 2026, it marked the most significant restructuring of Wisconsin’s Spills Law (Wis. Stat. § 292.11) since the statute was enacted. Six months later (nearly), WDNR is actively standing up its grant programs, responsible parties are assessing their positions, and municipalities are beginning to evaluate what the new framework means for them in practice. Heather Davis and I wrote about Act 201 in detail when it was signed – you can find that analysis on our website here.

The August 2026 issue of The Municipality – the League of Wisconsin Municipalities’ monthly magazine – featured a comprehensive PFAS and Act 201 analysis that we were pleased to have been a part of. Our article, “PFAS and the Spills Law: What Act 201 Changes for Municipal Liabilities,” appears alongside two companion pieces: “New PFAS Grant Programs: Funding Opportunities for Wisconsin Communities, ” by Bill Nelson and Derek Punches of Godfrey & Kahn, and a second article on “PFAS and Drinking Water: Standards, Approval, and Funding,” by Lawrie Kobza and Jared Walker Smith of Boardman Clark. The full issue is available here. Taken together, those articles, introduced by League Government Affairs Director Toni Herkert and Government Affairs Specialist Evan Miller, provide a thorough overview of how Act 201 reshapes the PFAS landscape for Wisconsin municipalities.

This blog post does something different.

This post takes a different approach. Rather than surveying the statute broadly, we want to speak directly to the specific categories of parties Act 201 most directly affects and provide a short, practical checklist of what these affected parties should be doing right now. The exemptions Act 201 created are not necessarily self-executing. Whether you can claim an exemption, and how strong your position will be, depends heavily on what you do or fail to do in the months ahead.

A Brief Recap

Act 201 creates a new § 292.11(9)(g) in Wisconsin’s Spills Law, establishing ten PFAS-specific exemptions from the statute’s core notice, restoration, and cost-recovery obligations. The exemptions are targeted: they are designed to protect parties who received PFAS passively, through no affirmative act of their own, while preserving full Spills Law liability for industrial and manufacturing facilities that used or caused the discharge of PFAS. The law also creates new PFAS grant programs funded through the $133.4 million PFAS Trust Fund (administered through Act 200), expands the Well Compensation Grant Program, and directs WDNR to issue a new general WPDES permit with PFAS monitoring conditions.

As noted our article in The Municipality, the policy logic is straightforward: passive recipients of PFAS – those who neither generated nor discharged it – deserve different treatment than those who did. Act 201 delivers on that logic. But it also expands WDNR’s authority to investigate and remediate PFAS contamination, and it makes clear that causers of PFAS contamination – industrial users, manufacturers, and generators – remain fully liable. The line between “passive receivers” and “causers” will be tested in WDNR enforcement and, likely, in litigation. The details will matter and will differ by situation.

A related development: Wisconsin’s new drinking water standards for PFAS became effective July 1, 2026. The new standards lower the limit for PFOA and PFOS to 4 parts per trillion (ppt) and set a limit of 10 ppt for PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX, with a hazard index limit of 1 for the PFAS mixture of PFNA, PFHxS, GenX, and PFBS. The deadline for drinking water systems to be in compliance is April 26, 2029. Based on compliance testing, approximately 40 municipal systems may exceed the lower PFAS limits and need to take action. As Lawrie Kobza and Jared Walker Smith of Boardman Clark observed in their companion Municipality article, these state standards are likely to remain in place regardless of what happens to the federal rules under legal challenge. Wisconsin law authorizes a safe drinking water program that is more stringent than the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

As we noted in April, much of the law’s ultimate impact will depend on how WDNR implements it, and that implementation is actively underway. Initial grant programs for private well sampling, schools, childcare facilities, and biosolids are expected to be available starting this fall. The Well Compensation Program expansion is expected to launch in late 2026.

Practical considerations if you fall into one of the key affected categories

If You Are an “Industrial Possessor” Under § 292.11(9)(g)1.ag.

Act 201 defines an “industrial possessor” as a person who owns an industrial property and who bears Spills Law responsibility solely because they possess PFAS discharged on that property through the landspreading of wastewater or industrial waste contaminated by PFAS and who did not cause the discharge. If you meet this definition, the new § 292.11(9)(g)2.d. exempts you from the obligation to conduct long-term remedial action for PFAS. But – and this is important – you are not exempt from conducting immediate actions and interim actions to contain or stabilize the discharge. The distinction between “immediate,” “interim,” and “remedial” action is now codified in Act 201’s definitions, and where your situation falls on that spectrum is a legal and factual question that requires careful analysis.

What you should be doing now:

·       Document your status. Gather records confirming that the PFAS on your property arrived through landspreading of wastewater or industrial waste under a permit or license, and that you did not cause or facilitate that discharge. This factual foundation is essential to claiming the exemption cleanly.

·       Confirm, also, that you are not a generator. The exemption does not apply to owners or operators of industrial or manufacturing facilities that used PFAS in their own processes. If your industrial activities involved PFAS in any way, you need legal analysis of whether the carve-out removes you from the exemption.

·       Assess your immediate and interim action obligations. Even as an exempt industrial possessor, you remain obligated to respond to the discharge in the near term. If you have not already engaged with WDNR regarding the site, you should consider doing so proactively, particularly while the agency’s implementation posture remains collaborative.

·       Evaluate your insurance coverage. Pre-1986 general liability insurance policies often lack the pollution exclusions that were added in later years, and they can be a significant and often overlooked source of coverage for PFAS-related costs. We have written about this opportunity in our earlier blog post linked here. An insurance archaeology review, ideally conducted under attorney-client privilege, can identify policies that may respond to your exposure before you spend another dollar out of pocket.

If You Operate a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

Act 201 § 292.11(9)(g)2.f. creates an exemption for municipal waste landfills that disposed of PFAS-contaminated leachate at a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), but the exemption is conditioned on installing and operating WDNR-approved PFAS leachate pretreatment by December 31, 2032. A “meaningful progress” savings clause applies if pretreatment technology is unavailable or procurement is demonstrably underway by that deadline. The exemption does not apply for PFAS contamination that originates from a discharge at the landfill site itself, a limitation that is more than theoretical for many facilities that already know PFAS is present in their leachate.

Note that there are two WDNR-sponsored forums that will be convening to discuss this specific Municipal Waste Landfill exemption language and that may provide suggestions to the WDNR regarding implementation strategies for WDNR: the WDNR PFAS External Advisory Group Waste Subgroup (co-chaired by Ned Witte) and the Waste & Materials Management Study Group PFAS Law Waste Facility Questions Subgroup.

What you should be doing now:

·       Begin documenting your pretreatment progress immediately. The 2032 deadline is six years away, but the “meaningful progress” showing is built on a record that starts today. If you have been evaluating treatment technologies, issued RFPs, engaged consultants, or applied for grant funding, that documentation belongs in a well-organized file that tells a coherent story of good-faith progress. Gaps in that record are harder to explain later than they are to avoid now.

·       Assess the on-site contamination gap. If PFAS in your leachate is accompanied by PFAS in groundwater, soil, or surface water at the landfill site itself, the § 2.f. exemption does not protect you from that on-site liability. You need a candid assessment of where your contamination originates – and whether you have other potential Spills Law exposure that the exemption does not cover.

·       Consider cost recovery under Wis. Stat. § 292.35. If the PFAS in your landfill arrived in waste streams from third-party generators – paper companies, food processors, industrial facilities – Act 201’s passage, combined with WDNR’s implementation framework, creates a strategic opportunity to pursue those generators for the costs of investigation, remediation, and compliance – if you meet the eligibility criteria as a qualified Local Government Unit under the statute’s terms. Wis. Stat. § 292.35 provides a structured, WDNR-supervised umpire process specifically designed for this situation. Witte Davis has two of the only lawyers in the state that have successfully used this statute to recover millions of dollars for the City of Manitowoc and substantial sums for the Ashwaubenon School District. The statute remains one of the most underutilized tools available to Wisconsin municipalities with contaminated, LGU-owned property.

·       Apply for Act 201 grant funding. Act 200 and 201 together provide specific funding streams for landfill leachate PFAS treatment at publicly owned landfills. WDNR’s Clean Water Emerging Contaminants program (funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) also covers leachate treatment projects. Getting on the list early, with a well-documented project scope, is important, because these programs will be oversubscribed.

·       Evaluate insurance coverage. The same insurance archaeology opportunity described above applies here. Pre-1986 CGL policies, in particular, may provide coverage for PFAS-related costs at the landfill that you did not know you had.

If You Own Property Where PFAS Contamination Originated Off-Site

Act 201 § 292.11(9)(g)2.h. creates a broad exemption for persons who own, lease, manage, or contract for property on which PFAS contamination did not originate, as long as they do not also have a connection to the property where the discharge actually originated. If you are a downgradient property owner dealing with PFAS that migrated from someone else’s operations, this is the most directly applicable provision for you.

What you should be doing now:

·       Establish the factual record for off-site origin. The exemption depends on a showing that your property is not the source. Environmental sampling, site history review, and hydrogeological analysis all contribute to that record. If you have not already characterized your PFAS contamination to a degree that allows you to identify the likely source, that work should be a priority, both to support your exemption claim and to identify the responsible party or parties you may be able to pursue for recovery.

·       Confirm the carve-out does not apply to you. The § 2.h. exemption is not available if you also own, lease, manage, or contract for the property where the discharge originated. If your operations or property interests have any connection – direct or indirect – to the originating site, you need legal analysis of whether that carve-out applies before asserting the exemption.

·       Engage WDNR early and strategically. If WDNR has not yet issued a responsible party letter for the on-site source, early engagement can help position you as a cooperative downstream recipient rather than a target. The agency’s current posture is collaborative, and that window is worth using.

·       Assess cost recovery and litigation options. Being an exempt off-site contamination recipient does not mean accepting the costs of investigation and remediation. Depending on the circumstances, you may have claims against the property owner or operator responsible for the originating discharge based on common law theories or by leveraging WDNR’s enforcement of the Spills Law, against PFAS manufacturers under failure-to-warn theories, or both. Identifying those claims early, before evidence degrades, records are lost, or statutes of limitation run, is essential.

·       Evaluate insurance. Pre-1986 insurance policies can be a significant resource for downstream property owners facing PFAS costs. An insurance archaeology review is a low-cost, high-upside first step.

If You Are a Contract Landspreader or Agricultural/Residential/Commercial Property Owner

Act 201 § 292.11(9)(g)2.a. through 2.c. provide distinct exemptions for: (a) persons who contracted to spread wastewater or industrial waste contaminated by PFAS under a permit that did not address PFAS; (b) agricultural and residential property owners upon whose land permitted spreading occurred; and (c) commercial property owners in the same position. These are among the most practically significant exemptions in Act 201, directly addressing the landspreading situations that generated the most controversy under prior law.

What you should be doing now:

·       Locate and preserve your permits. The exemption for spreaders and property owners is conditioned on “substantial compliance” with the applicable license or permit for non-PFAS substances, and requires that the permit not have addressed PFAS at the time of spreading. If you cannot produce your permits, that is a problem. Gather those records now.

·       Document spreading history. For agricultural and residential landowners in particular, records of when spreading occurred, who performed it, and under what permit authority are critical. In many cases, those records were maintained by the spreading contractor or the generating facility rather than the landowner. Tracking this information down may take time.

·       Know the exclusions that apply to you. Contract spreaders who also generated the wastewater or industrial waste are not protected. Agricultural and residential landowners who caused a PFAS discharge through non-agricultural or non-residential activity on the property lose the exemption for that portion of the contamination. Commercial property owners need the spreading to have been under a permit that was silent on PFAS. Understanding where you fit in that matrix is not always straightforward.

·       Evaluate food processing and animal product waste specifically. If the waste you spread came from animal product or food processing facilities, Act 201 § 292.11(9)(g)2.i. provides a separate and arguably cleaner exemption pathway that is notably not subject to the industrial waste carve-out in the same way. If that exemption is available to you, understanding the difference matters.

If You Are a Municipality with PFAS Contamination in Your Drinking Water Supply

Act 201, read together with Wisconsin’s new drinking water standards for PFAS that took effect July 1, 2026, lowering the PFOA and PFOS limit to 4 ppt, matching the federal standard, has created both new obligations and significant new opportunities for affected municipalities. As Lawrie Kobza and Jared Walker Smith of Boardman Clark noted in their Municipality article, approximately 40 municipal water systems are expected to exceed the lower limits and will need to take action to achieve compliance by the April 26, 2029 deadline.

What you should be doing now:

·       Apply for Act 201 grant funding without delay. WDNR will prioritize grants for sampling of private wells, schools, childcare facilities, and biosolids, with programs expected to open this fall. For municipalities that need treatment system upgrades or new wells to achieve PFAS MCL compliance, Act 201’s Community PFAS Grant Program provides funding – but requires a matching funds contribution of at least 20% of the grant amount for most projects, or at least 40% for installing treatment or constructing wells for a public water system. Start identifying your match capacity and project scope now, because as all of the Municipality authors emphasized: given the number of municipalities facing PFAS challenges statewide and the substantial cost of addressing contamination, the initial funding for these programs could be exhausted quickly.

·       Look at the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund. Financial assistance for construction projects is also available through this program, a project may be eligible for principal forgiveness of up to 70% of project costs with a municipal cap of $7 million, with a loan available for additional costs. WDNR will reduce the principal forgiveness, however, by any funds a municipality receives from a Congressional earmark or a PFAS settlement. More information is available at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/aid/EIF.html.

·       Know the PSC approval pathway for urgent projects. Act 201 allows a municipality to commence a PFAS response project without prior Public Service Commission approval under certain circumstances, including: the total project cost is under $2,000,000; the PFAS was recently discovered; and the system promptly notifies the PSC and submits an appropriate application within 30 days of project commencement. If your situation is urgent, this pathway is worth understanding before you start.

·       Identify the source of PFAS in your water supply. Whether the contamination came from upstream industrial dischargers, paper mill sludge, landfill leachate, AFFF foam use at an airport or fire training site, or biosolids spread on land in your watershed is not just a scientific question – it is the threshold question for cost recovery. Source identification work conducted under attorney-client privilege maximizes your legal options while protecting sensitive findings.

·       Evaluate your position under Wis. Stat. § 292.35. If the City owns a landfill or other property from which PFAS may have migrated into your water supply, or if third-party generators can be identified who contributed to the contamination, § 292.35 gives you a structured, expedited mechanism to pursue cost recovery. Again, this statute has produced substantial results for Wisconsin municipalities in analogous circumstances.

·       Consider manufacturer litigation. PFAS litigation against manufacturers – 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and others – has now produced billions of dollars in settlements nationally, and the Phase 2 public water system settlement from the national AFFF multidistrict litigation is an additional avenue that Wisconsin public water systems should evaluate. The legal formula for these claims is well developed and directly applicable to Wisconsin municipalities.

·       Evaluate insurance. Municipalities, like private parties, may have pre-1986 CGL insurance policies – often from carriers no longer operating under the same name – that respond to PFAS cleanup costs without the pollution exclusions that became standard in later years. See our overview of this opportunity here.

If You Are a WPDES Permit Holder Discharging PFAS in Compliance with Permit Conditions – Including Biosolids Generators

Act 201 § 292.11(9)(g)2.j. exempts persons holding valid WPDES permits under ch. 283 from Spills Law obligations with respect to PFAS discharged in compliance with permit limits or conditions. This is a meaningful protection, but it has a real boundary: it only applies to discharges that are within permit limits.

When Act 201 was signed in April, WDNR was directed to issue a new general WPDES permit with PFAS monitoring conditions. That permit has now been issued. WPDES General Permit No. WI-0012345-01-0 (“PFAS Monitoring for Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Generators”) was signed on June 28, 2026 by Adrian Stocks, Director of the Bureau of Water Quality, and became effective July 4, 2026. It expires in June 2031. This is a significant development that directly affects every facility in Wisconsin that generates and land-applies sewage sludge (biosolids) under a WPDES permit.

Who is covered. The general permit applies to any facility engaged in PFAS monitoring for sewage sludge (biosolids) generation that is located in Wisconsin and meets the applicability criteria set out in the permit. Sewage sludge generators that do not have individual permit limits or conditions on PFAS substances are no longer eligible for coverage under this general permit upon modification or reissuance of that generator’s individual permit. When all sewage sludge generators’ individual permits have been modified or reissued to include PFAS limits or conditions, this general permit will be terminated.

What it requires. The general permit establishes PFAS monitoring and reporting requirements for covered biosolids generators. Sampling and reporting obligations are structured around PFAS concentrations in biosolids destined for land application. The permit includes provisions for when average sampling results exceed specified concentration thresholds in biosolids, triggering individual permit-level requirements. Generators should review the full permit conditions carefully to understand their specific sampling schedules, analytical methods, and reporting obligations.

The Spills Law exemption connection. Act 201 also specifies that the WPDES permit exemption in § 292.11(9)(g)2.j. applies to a person covered by the new general permit relating to the land application of sewage sludge. Biosolids generators who comply with the conditions of this new general permit, including its PFAS monitoring requirements, therefore have a pathway to claim the Spills Law exemption for PFAS in their land-applied biosolids, provided the discharge is in compliance with permit conditions.

What you should be doing now:

·       Determine whether you are covered by the new general permit. If you generate and land-apply sewage sludge and your individual WPDES permit does not currently include PFAS-specific limits or conditions, review the applicability criteria in General Permit WI-0012345-01-0 immediately. Coverage under this permit is the foundation of both your PFAS monitoring compliance obligation and your pathway to the Act 201 Spills Law exemption.

·       Understand the sampling and reporting requirements that now apply to you. The general permit establishes specific monitoring obligations for PFAS in biosolids. Review the sampling schedule, analytical method requirements, and reporting deadlines carefully. Failure to comply with permit conditions is not just a regulatory violation, it also defeats the Spills Law exemption that compliance would otherwise support.

·       Document your compliance contemporaneously. The Act 201 exemption is available to permit holders discharging in compliance with permit conditions. That means your compliance record, including sampling results, chain of custody documentation, timely reports, is also your liability defense. Treat it accordingly.

·       Prepare for transition to individual permit conditions. The general permit is a transitional vehicle: as individual WPDES permits for sewage sludge generators are modified or reissued to include PFAS-specific limits or conditions, those generators will no longer be eligible for general permit coverage. Begin engaging with WDNR now about the timeline and expected content of your individual permit revision so you are not surprised when the transition occurs.

·       Know the limits of the exemption. The WPDES permit exemption protects compliant discharges from Spills Law liability, but it does not protect against other regulatory exposure, private tort claims, or claims under federal law. If your discharges have contributed to downstream PFAS contamination in surface water or groundwater, those claims exist on a separate legal track regardless of permit compliance. The exemption is a Spills Law tool, not a universal liability shield.

Evaluate insurance. Pre-1986 CGL policies may provide coverage for PFAS-related costs arising from biosolids land application operations. See our overview of this opportunity here.

If You Are a Fire Department or Airport That Used PFAS-Containing Foam

Act 201 § 292.11(9)(g)2.e. exempts publicly owned or operated fire departments that responded to emergencies requiring PFAS use, or conducted training for such emergencies, in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The exemption explicitly does not extend to training or testing conducted at public use airports.

What you should be doing now:

·       Document compliance with applicable regulations. The exemption is conditioned on compliance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements in effect at the time of the response or training. Preserving records of the incident, the foam products used, the authorization for their use, and any applicable regulatory framework is essential to being able to claim the exemption.

·       If your department trained or tested at a public use airport, seek legal advice. The airport training and testing carve-out is explicit in the statute and reflects a deliberate policy choice. If foam was used at a public use airport in a training or testing context – as opposed to an actual emergency response – you are not protected by the § 2.e. exemption and should evaluate your exposure under the Spills Law.

·       Evaluate insurance. Historical CGL policies may provide coverage for PFAS-related costs arising from fire department operations, including responses where foam was deployed. An insurance archaeology review is a worthwhile first step before spending municipal funds on investigation or remediation.

If Your Municipality Is Considering Taking Title to a PFAS-Contaminated Brownfield

This is a category that did not exist before Act 201, and it is one of the most significant changes the new law makes for local governmental units specifically. The existing LGU liability exemption in § 292.11(9)(e) has always protected municipalities that acquired contaminated property through involuntary means – tax delinquency, condemnation, escheat – but it has never extended to voluntary, arms-length purchase. Act 201 changes that for PFAS-contaminated brownfields, adding a seventh qualifying method: an LGU that purchases a property contaminated by PFAS and qualifying as a brownfield under s. 238.13(1)(a) may now claim the Spills Law exemption. As we wrote in The Municipality, this is a meaningful new tool for municipalities engaged in brownfield redevelopment.

The important catch is that this exemption requires a prior written agreement with WDNR. Unlike the other LGU exemption categories, it is not self-executing. LGUs should closely monitor how WDNR will structure those agreements as the agency’s implementation approach develops.

What you should be doing now:

·       Identify brownfield acquisition targets where the new exemption could apply. If your community has been reluctant to pursue purchase of PFAS-contaminated properties because of Spills Law liability concerns, the calculus has shifted. The exemption now makes voluntary purchase a viable path to brownfield redevelopment in a category where it previously was not.

·       Engage WDNR early on agreement structure. Because the exemption is conditioned on a WDNR agreement, municipalities that want to use this pathway need to begin engaging WDNR before they commit to a purchase. The terms of those agreements are currently being developed, and early participants will have more influence over what they contain.

·       Do your source investigation first. The PFAS-brownfield exemption does not protect an LGU whose own activities cause additional discharge after acquisition. Knowing what you are buying and what the contamination profile looks like before you sign a purchase agreement is essential both to making the exemption work and to negotiating appropriate price and indemnification terms.

·       Consider the Airport and Industrial Possessor PFAS Grant Program. Act 201 creates this new grant program to benefit municipal airports and other eligible properties, including measures to control or minimize PFAS discharges and work necessary to eliminate ongoing threats to public health or the environment. For municipalities that own or operate public-use airports with PFAS contamination from historical firefighting foam use, this is a funding pathway worth evaluating separately from the Community PFAS Grant Program.

Final Thoughts

Across all of these categories, one common theme applies: WDNR is in the early stages of implementing Act 201, and its posture is currently one of engagement rather than enforcement. The agency has invited public input on the new programs and exemptions, grant program development is underway, and the general permit process is not yet complete. For parties in ambiguous or uncertain positions under the new framework, proactive, cooperative engagement with WDNR – conducted with the benefit of legal counsel and under the protection of attorney-client privilege where appropriate – is almost always preferable to waiting.

Act 201 created significant new tools for passive recipients of PFAS contamination. But tools require users. If you are uncertain where you fall under the new framework, or what your next step should be, we welcome the conversation.

Edward B. (Ned) Witte and Heather A. Davis are founding partners of Witte Davis Law, a boutique environmental law firm with a national PFAS practice. Witte Davis lawyers are licensed in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Kentucky, Oregon, and Texas. This blog post is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact us at ned@wittedavis.com or heather@wittedavis.com to discuss your specific situation.