Authored by Ken Sansone, Senior Partner, SL Environmental Law Group, & Kyla Tengdin, Education & Outreach, SL Environmental Law Group
According to the National League of Cities’ 2026 State of the Cities report, infrastructure remains a top priority for local leaders. Recent federal investment helped communities repair, replace and improve aging systems and build resilience, but as American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) programs wind down, cities may face a funding “cliff.” In NLC’s nationwide State of the Cities survey, 81 percent of mayors said the end of these programs would negatively affect infrastructure spending.
The timing is especially difficult as municipalities prepare for current and potential costs tied to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals.” For years, most of the public discussion and regulatory attention on PFAS focused on drinking water.
Now, many cities are learning that their exposure may be broader. Because PFAS are used in many consumer and industrial products, they can enter wastewater and the residuals left by wastewater treatment, called biosolids, through no fault of utilities. States are responding by adding testing requirements and restrictions on biosolids management. At the same time, cities that own airports, firefighting training facilities or landfills may face soil contamination — and resulting investigation and remediation costs — from the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam or PFAS-contaminated landfill leachate.
For local governments, a question arises: Who will pay for the costs of cleanup that municipalities did not create?
PFAS in Drinking Water Was Only the Beginning
Drinking water has been the first major focus of PFAS regulation, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 4 parts per trillion (ppt) standard for PFOA and PFOS, two common PFAS compounds. To pay for advanced treatment and related infrastructure costs, many municipalities have combined ARPA and IIJA funds with PFAS settlements with manufacturers 3M (PDF), DuPont (PDF), Tyco (PDF) and BASF (PDF), which together provided up to $14 billion total for public drinking water systems nationwide. As many cities move forward with plans to address PFAS-affected drinking water, attention is shifting to other PFAS impacts.
Wastewater Utilities May Be the Next Major Front
Wastewater utilities are passive receivers of PFAS from household, commercial and industrial waste streams, yet they face growing pressure to manage this contamination that they did not produce. Meanwhile, large manufacturers that profited from these chemicals for decades are not contributing sufficiently to cleanup.
Municipalities in states such as Maine, where biosolid disposal options have been restricted in an effort to reduce the spread of PFAS, have experienced significant cost increases as they manage these biosolids. For cities in the many states currently developing PFAS wastewater regulations, similar challenges may follow: additional sampling and lab analysis, increased hauling and disposal expenses and long-term infrastructure investments if future regulations require PFAS treatment.
Soil Contamination at Airports, Firefighting Training Facilities and Landfills
PFAS contamination in soil and groundwater creates another challenge for municipalities that own airports, firefighting training facilities, landfills or other properties where PFAS-containing products were used, stored or disposed of. For decades, aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containing PFAS was discharged at airports and fire department facilities, often for training firefighters. Unfortunately, these firefighters, and the cities that own the facilities, were never warned of the dangers. Landfills also receive PFAS from thousands of common household products. To protect against the migration of PFAS from these sites, municipalities may need site investigations, remediation or disposal of contaminated soil and groundwater, or even infrastructure improvements.
Emerging Problems Call for Innovative Funding Solutions
As municipal leaders assess the widening scope of PFAS impacts, many are asking how to cover costs while major infrastructure funding programs are ending. Federal and state grants can help, especially to offset drinking water treatment costs, but public funding is unlikely to cover every PFAS-related expense. Grants may be competitive, restricted to specific uses or populations, and insufficient for decades of operation and maintenance. Traditional financing, including bonds and other debt, can provide capital, but it does not eliminate the cost. Ultimately, repayment may still fall to taxpayers.
In addition to traditional funding strategies, many municipalities are also exploring litigation against PFAS manufacturers. Most claims related to PFAS wastewater and soil contamination have been grouped into the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam multi-district litigation (AFFF MDL), which streamlines the legal process while allowing each municipality to maintain control of its own claim and settlement decisions. The MDL already led to multibillion-dollar settlements for public drinking water providers affected by PFAS and is expected to resolve other claims through future settlements or litigation. Municipalities affected by PFAS in wastewater or soil still have time to explore potential claims that may create funding opportunities. Most of the claims filed in the MDL on behalf of public agencies are being handled by contingency-fee firms that are not paid anything unless the claims succeed, eliminating any downside financial risk to the agencies or public fisc. The first step is to discuss potential claims with an attorney with experience in contamination litigation. Through these conversations, municipal leaders and city attorneys can determine an optimal legal strategy.
The Time to Evaluate Funding Options Is Before the Costs Fully Arrive
With PFAS risks and regulations evolving and a potential infrastructure funding cliff approaching, future expenses may be unpredictable. Many cities already face high costs for contamination they did not create. Municipalities that have incurred PFAS-related expenses — or are concerned they may soon — can evaluate legal claims and other funding tools to help shift the burden away from taxpayers and toward the companies that produced and profited from PFAS. Using every available option now can help cities build resilience for a more sustainable future.
Visit the NLC Strategic Partnerships page to learn more about organizations like SL Environmental Law Group dedicated to making NLC the premier resource for local governments.
Learn More and Take Action
Read NLC’s letter on municipal liability protection (PDF) and ask your Members of Congress to support a municipal liability exemption in any PFAS legislation.
Congress Allows $36B in Transportation Cuts as Reauthorization Efforts Stalls
- Brittney D. Kohler
CBRS in Action: Powering Connectivity and Innovation in Communities
CitiesSpeak Podcast: Debating Data Center Development with Kate Stoll, Councilmember Nikki Lee & Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell
Know My City Community Advisor Tool
Could City Buildings Grow Food? New Approach Links Urban Agriculture to Infrastructure and Resilience