Colorado Environmental Law Journal

A Précis of PFAS Legislation in the Southwestern United States

—

by

Brenden Catt
in

A Précis of PFAS Legislation in the Southwestern United States

Brenden Catt[1]*

Table of Contents

Abstract 438

Introduction 438

I. Background 439

II. PFAS Legislation in the Southwestern United States. 442

A. Colorado 442

B. New Mexico 445

C. Arizona 448

D. Nevada 450

E. Utah 452

III. Broad Commonalities and Narrow Distinctions in Southwestern PFAS Legislation 453

A. Bans on Products Containing Intentionally Added PFAS 454

B. Delayed Effective Dates 455

C. Labeling, Notification, and Reporting Requirements 458

D. Tailored Exemptions 460

IV. Conclusion 461

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively, “PFAS”) present a unique and enduring challenge for regulators and those they regulate. Absent comprehensive federal legislation, the federal government has relied on its executive agencies to regulate PFAS. Although many federal agencies may possess jurisdiction to regulate PFAS, the executive branch has relied heavily upon the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Shifting political and administrative priorities, though, have caused EPA’s regulatory efforts to slow. Conversely, state efforts to regulate PFAS have accelerated and, since 2021, when Maine enacted the first state ban on PFAS in consumer products, states have adopted hundreds of bills regulating PFAS. The southwestern United States, including Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, has experienced a similar momentum, with each state curating its laws to address localized priorities. Such curation has precipitated a patchwork of PFAS legislation throughout the region. As such, this Article surveys and analyzes the broad commonalities and narrow distinctions of southwestern PFAS legislation ahead of regulatory developments expected to proliferate throughout each level and branch of government.

Introduction

From the film on our floss to the coating on our cookware, modern life is quietly immersed in man-made chemicals. Among them are PFAS. Characterized by their fluorinated carbon chain and strong carbon-fluorine bonds,[2] the first chemical form of PFAS was discovered by Fritz Schloffer and Otto Scherer in 1934.[3] PFAS were commoditized less than twenty years later, and their unique chemical properties, including their repellency, resistance, and friction reduction, quickly found widespread applications in consumer, industrial, and commercial products.[4] Yet, the chemical properties and widespread applications of PFAS also created a persistent, mobile, and unattenuated environmental presence.[5] This presence has caused elevated levels of PFAS in human and ecological receptors, heightened public awareness, and, in turn, increased legislative efforts to address sources of PFAS exposure.[6]

This Article functions as a précis of state PFAS legislation across the southwestern United States. Part I explores the federal regulatory frameworks and deregulatory trends that have led to an increase in state PFAS legislation; Part II summarizes state PFAS legislation in the southwestern United States, including legislation introduced and adopted by Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah; Part III analyzes the broad commonalities and narrow, but often critical, distinctions in that legislation; this Article concludes by inquiring as to whether a renewed emphasis on cooperative federalism or federal preemption is better suited to improve consistency, streamline compliance, and reduce uncertainty across the southwestern United States.

I. Background

Thus far, Congress has yet to enact comprehensive PFAS legislation, requiring the federal government to rely on its executive agencies to regulate PFAS. While numerous federal agencies may share jurisdiction to regulate PFAS, including the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”),[7] the EPA has been the federal government’s primary vehicle for addressing PFAS. In 2006, EPA began addressing PFAS through the PFOA stewardship program, whereby eight participating companies agreed to reduce their emissions and use of PFAS in certain consumer products.[8] EPA continued to advance the federal regulatory framework by setting maximum contaminant levels under the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”),[9] establishing reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”),[10] releasing guidance to address PFAS discharges in National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”),[11] and designating PFAS as a hazardous substance by, for the first time in history, relying upon Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.[12]

Pending a change in federal administrations between late 2024 and early 2025, EPA temporarily furloughed its PFAS regulatory objectives.[13] That was until April 28, 2025, when EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that EPA would leverage its authority under the CWA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), TSCA, and SDWA to prevent further PFAS contamination.[14] Among other objectives, that announcement expressed EPA’s commitment to: (1) designating a lead representative for inter-agency PFAS efforts; (2) implementing a PFAS testing strategy under TSCA; (3) exploring RCRA’s authority to address PFAS releases; (4) enforcing CWA limitations on PFAS releases; (5) improving remediation and cleanup efforts where PFAS has impacted drinking water; and (6) evaluating liability frameworks for PFAS polluters and passive receivers.[15] Since that announcement, EPA has eased its stance on PFAS in other respects by extending the TSCA reporting period for companies that manufactured or imported products with PFAS,[16] seeking an abeyance in a case challenging its PFAS drinking water standards,[17] extending the compliance timeline for water systems to meet PFAS drinking water standards,[18] and rescinding and reconsidering the maximum contaminant levels for four of the six PFAS compounds generally found in drinking water.[19]

As the federal regulatory front stalled, states surged forward, rapidly enacting legislation to address PFAS. In 2021, Maine became the first state to enact legislation banning PFAS in all consumer products.[20] Similar legislation has since continued to mount throughout the United States. In 2025, thirty-nine states collectively proposed over 300 PFAS-related bills, far exceeding the volume of PFAS legislation from the year prior.[21] This trend is expected to continue as scientific findings on PFAS advance, public awareness intensifies, and additional consumer products are called into question. The southwestern United States is unlikely to escape this trend.[22] Throughout the southwestern United States, states are similarly eager to legislate the sale, distribution, manufacture, and use of products containing PFAS.

II. PFAS Legislation in the Southwestern United States.

PFAS legislation in the southwestern United States has grown while the region grapples with water availability concerns. Fueled by higher average temperatures year over year for the last quarter century, the southwestern United States has experienced persistent drought conditions.[23] These conditions have strained water availability and interstate relationships, generating regional tensions over water rights in the Colorado River Basin and increasing conservation efforts.[24] State legislatures consistently find support to ground those conservation efforts in law, which has paved the way for legislation in the southwestern United States governing water use, water rights, and sources of water contamination. Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah have embraced a similar philosophy, adopting policies to govern and conserve their limited water resources.[25] Driven by their desire to conserve water resources and respond to public health concerns, many of these states have swiftly adopted volumes of PFAS legislation.

A. Colorado

Despite its tumultuous start, Colorado was at the forefront of advancing PFAS legislation in the southwestern United States, first curtailing the use of firefighting foam containing PFAS and eventually codifying PFAS in products laws. In 2019, Colorado initially prohibited the use, sale, manufacture, and distribution of firefighting foam containing PFAS through House Bill 19-1279, enacting the Firefighting Foam and Personal Protective Equipment Act, and prohibiting the use of such firefighting foam for training or testing purposes.[26] The following year, through House Bill 20-1119, Colorado temporarily eased certain restrictions prohibiting the use of firefighting foam containing PFAS for testing or training purposes, provided that the entity using such foam was registered.[27] Despite that amendment, the general prohibition on using firefighting foam containing PFAS for testing purposes after August 2, 2019, and the prohibition on selling and distributing such foam after August 2, 2021, remained.[28] In 2020, Colorado also enacted Senate Bill 20-218 to fund a takeback program for firefighting foam containing PFAS, study PFAS in surface waters, improve PFAS treatment infrastructure, and respond to emergencies in communities affected by PFAS.[29]

After a two-year hiatus, Colorado again enacted PFAS legislation in 2022. On June 3, 2022, the governor signed House Bill 22-1345, which codified the PFAS Chemicals Consumer Protection Act (the “PFAS Protection Act”).[30] The PFAS Protection Act further restricted the use of firefighting foam through new containment and storage measures and expanded Colorado’s tools to counter PFAS by banning the sale and distribution of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS.[31] As of January 1, 2024, the PFAS Protection Act bans the sale of five products containing intentionally added PFAS, including food packaging, juvenile products, and oil and gas products.[32] As of January 1, 2025, the PFAS Protection Act bans the sale and distribution of three additional products containing intentionally added PFAS, including cosmetics.[33] Beginning January 1, 2027, the PFAS Protection Act will prohibit the sale and distribution of outdoor textile furnishings and upholstered furniture that contain intentionally added PFAS.[34] The PFAS Protection Act also requires labels for cookware where any surface containing PFAS may come into contact with a food or beverage.[35]

In 2024, Colorado expanded the PFAS Protection Act’s product bans and labeling requirements through Senate Bill 24-081.[36] That expansion prohibits five additional products containing intentionally added PFAS, including cookware, dental floss, and menstrual products, from being sold or distributed after January 1, 2026.[37] That expansion will also prohibit four additional products containing intentionally added PFAS, including commercial food equipment, textile articles, and outdoor equipment for severe wet conditions, from being sold or distributed after January 1, 2028.[38] Colorado also codified a labeling requirement through Senate Bill 24-081 for “outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions,” which it defined as a product that: (1) protects against extended exposure to rain or wet conditions; (2) is used by outdoor sports experts; and (3) is not marketed for general consumer use.[39] “Outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions” that contains intentionally added PFAS is prohibited from being sold, offered for sale, or distributed unless that apparel includes a clear label conveying that it is “made with PFAS chemicals.”[40] Colorado also used Senate Bill 24-081 as an opportunity to expand the items previously excluded from its definition of “products” and thereby exempt from its product bans, drugs, medical devices, and the associated packaging approved by the FDA; veterinary pesticide, parasiticide, and associated packaging approved by the EPA; and biologics, diagnostics, and the associated packaging approved by United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).[41]

Notably, Colorado has stopped short of outright banning the sale or distribution of all products containing intentionally added PFAS, unlike New Mexico.

B. New Mexico

New Mexico is now one of three states with codified laws that will ban and require reporting for all products containing intentionally added PFAS. New Mexico first proposed legislation to address PFAS in 2020, attempting to appropriate funding to test wells adjacent to the Cannon Air Force Base for PFAS.[42] Although that attempted appropriation ultimately failed, New Mexico began to lay the foundation for its forthcoming PFAS legislation during the following legislative session by authorizing the Environmental Improvement Board (“EIB”) to promulgate rules more stringent than federal law.[43] New Mexico carried that momentum into the 2025 legislative session, banning and placing other limitations on products containing intentionally added PFAS through House Bill 212 and House Bill 140.[44]

On April 8, 2025, New Mexico adopted House Bill 212, codifying the Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act under N.M.S.A. § 74-15-1 et seq. (the “PFAS Substances Act”), which addresses products containing intentionally added PFAS in three primary respects.[45] First, the PFAS Substances Act requires manufacturers of PFAS-containing products to prepare a report that notifies the New Mexico Environment Department (“NMED”) about the product before January 1, 2027.[46] That notification must include: (1) a brief description of the product; (2) the purpose for which PFAS is used in the product; (3) the amount of PFAS in the product; (4) the name and address of the manufacturer and the name and address of the manufacturer’s contact; and (5) any additional information requested by NMED, provided that the additional information does not disclose trade secrets or confidential business information.[47]

Second, and unique to New Mexico’s legislation, the PFAS Substances Act authorizes NMED to require manufacturers to test products with intentionally added PFAS.[48] If NMED has reason to believe that a product with intentionally added PFAS is being sold, offered for sale, or distributed in New Mexico, NMED may require the manufacturer to test the product and report the results to NMED within thirty days.[49] If the test demonstrates that the product does not contain intentionally added PFAS, the manufacturer must provide NMED with a certificate of compliance attesting to the absence of PFAS.[50] If the test demonstrates that the product contains intentionally added PFAS, the manufacturer must provide NMED with certain information and inform retailers that the product may not be sold in New Mexico.[51]

Third, the PFAS Substances Act prohibits the sale and distribution of products containing intentionally added PFAS. New Mexico provided manufacturers a delayed timeline before these bans become effective, however. Beginning January 1, 2027, five products containing PFAS, including cookware, juvenile products, and firefighting foam, are prohibited from being sold or offered for sale.[52] Beginning January 1, 2028, nine additional products containing PFAS, including cosmetics, cleaning products, and textiles, are prohibited from being sold or offered for sale.[53] Beginning January 1, 2032, all products containing PFAS are prohibited from being sold or offered for sale.[54] The PFAS Substances Act also vests power in the EIB to adopt rules prohibiting additional products containing PFAS from being sold or offered for sale.[55] If the EIB adopts such rules, it is required to establish a delayed effective date of no less than six months after the rules are adopted.[56]

Markedly, the PFAS Substances Act exempts numerous products from New Mexico’s product bans and the reporting and testing requirements. Products exempt from the product bans and reporting requirements include, but are not limited to, medical devices and associated packaging; cooling, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration equipment; veterinary medical products and devices; and other products preempted by federal regulation.[57] However, the only products exempt from the testing requirements, if NMED suspects a product contains intentionally added PFAS, are medical devices or drugs, or the packaging of medical devices or drugs, regulated by the FDA.[58]

New Mexico took a narrower approach to regulating PFAS through House Bill 140. That bill amended New Mexico’s Hazardous Waste Act, N.M.S.A. § 74-4-1 et seq., by adding firefighting foam containing PFAS to the definition of hazardous waste and authorizing the EIB to adopt rules pertaining to the management of such foams as hazardous waste.[59] Although somewhat benign on the surface, this definitional change is expected to have significant implications. First, as a state with primacy over the federal hazardous waste program, it enables New Mexico to regulate firefighting foam containing PFAS as hazardous waste, despite it not being listed as a hazardous waste under federal law.[60] Second, it has the potential to reallocate cleanup costs related to prior releases of such foam from taxpayers to those responsible for PFAS contamination.[61] Third, and coupled with the authority vested in the EIB to adopt rules more stringent than federal law, it could precipitate management requirements for firefighting foams containing PFAS that are more stringent than federal law.[62]

New Mexico’s zealous approach to regulating PFAS was founded in tenacious political will and historic conflicts not necessarily shared by its southwestern neighbors.[63]

C. Arizona

Arizona has begun to wade into the world of PFAS legislation. But, unlike Colorado and New Mexico, it has neither enacted legislation banning the sale or distribution of consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS nor required labeling, reporting, or testing for such products. Instead, Arizona has adopted legislation aimed at reducing the use of firefighting foam containing PFAS and has proposed legislation governing PFAS groundwater contaminant levels and restricting the distribution and use of fertilizer and pesticides containing PFAS.

On May 13, 2019, Arizona passed Senate Bill 1526, later codified as A.R.S. § 36-1696, which restricts the use of firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS.[64] Although that bill covered the same firefighting foam Colorado restricted through the PFAS Protection Act and New Mexico banned through the PFAS Substances Act, Arizona took a distinct approach. Since January 1, 2020, Arizona has prohibited the use of firefighting foam containing PFAS for training purposes unless its use is required by federal law or the testing facility implements “appropriate containment, treatment and disposal measures” to prevent releases to the environment.[65] Notably, Arizona has not banned the manufacture, sale, or distribution of PFAS-containing firefighting foam; nor has it prohibited the use of such firefighting foam in emergency situations or fire-prevention operations.[66]

Arizona’s 2025 legislative session concluded on May 9, 2025, during which two bills proposing to regulate PFAS were introduced: House Bill 2646 and Senate Bill 1391. House Bill 2646 proposed to prohibit the distribution and use of fertilizer containing PFAS, including fertilizer composed of biosolids and sewage sludge, after December 31, 2026.[67] Senate Bill 1391 proposed requiring the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) to adopt aquifer water quality standards for PFAS. [68] Senate Bill 1391 also set parameters for adopting those standards by instructing ADEQ to review contaminant levels in other states, consider studies and scientific evidence, and annually review the established standards.[69] That bill also proposed removing a provision requiring ADEQ to ensure that its rules, standards, and permits are not more stringent than federal law, which likely diminished the few chances it had at advancing.[70] Although neither House Bill 2646 nor Senate Bill 1391 advanced beyond committee, they previewed forthcoming events.

In 2026, the Arizona State Legislature introduced four PFAS-related bills, including House Bill 2517, House Bill 2640, House Bill 2641, and House Bill 2642.[71] First, House Bill 2517, like Senate Bill 1391 from the 2025 legislative session, proposed requiring the Director of ADEQ to establish aquifer water quality standards for PFAS and prescribing the conditions under which the Director should develop those standards.[72] Second, House Bill 2640, like House Bill 2646 from the 2025 legislative session, proposed prohibiting the use and distribution of fertilizer, including biosolids and sewage sludge, that contains PFAS after December 31, 2027.[73] Third, House Bill 2641 proposed conforming changes to Arizona’s firefighting foam containing PFAS prohibition, first adopted through Senate Bill 1526 in 2019.[74] Finally, House Bill 2642 proposed a prohibition on the distribution of any pesticide that contains PFAS after December 31, 2027.[75]

Arizona’s legislative landscape continues to evolve, an evolution likely to be shared by other southwestern states developing their legislative approach to PFAS.

D. Nevada

Nevada is a southwestern state calculating its legislative approach to PFAS. Nevada first enacted PFAS legislation in 2021, adopting Assembly Bill 97.[76] In the following legislative session, the Nevada Legislature again addressed PFAS with Senate Bill 76, which the Governor of Nevada ultimately vetoed on the grounds that Senate Bill 76 was premature considering EPA’s anticipated actions to address PFAS nationally.[77] For the third consecutive legislative session, PFAS found its way onto Nevada’s legislative agenda through Senate Bill 173 in 2025, which ultimately failed to advance beyond the Assembly.[78] These repeated, unsuccessful efforts suggest that Nevada has a tempered appetite for expanding its legislative approach to PFAS beyond its current boundaries.

In 2021, like many of its southwestern counterparts, Nevada’s PFAS legislation began by addressing firefighting foam containing PFAS through Assembly Bill 97.[79] Like Arizona, Nevada prohibits the discharge, use, or release of firefighting foam containing PFAS for testing or training purposes.[80] For those discharging, using, or releasing firefighting foam containing PFAS, Nevada codified a requirement to report such discharge, use, or release to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection within twenty-four hours.[81] That report must include the time, date, location, and estimated amount of firefighting foam discharged, used, or released, as well as the purpose and reason for the discharge, use, or release.[82] Assembly Bill 97 also established a working group to study environmental contamination from the use of PFAS and recommend actions to monitor, contain, and clean up PFAS contamination.[83] This working group likely informed Nevada’s subsequent attempts to ban products containing intentionally added PFAS.

The first of those attempts occurred during the very next legislative session, when Nevada again confronted PFAS through Senate Bill 76. Senate Bill 76 mirrored the product bans and labeling requirements adopted by other southwestern jurisdictions. Beginning with the product bans, Senate Bill 76 proposed prohibiting manufacturers from selling or offering for sale seven products containing intentionally added PFAS, including textiles, cosmetics, and food packaging, after October 1, 2024.[84] That bill would have also required manufacturers of cookware to label the product containing intentionally added PFAS and include in that label a link to a website educating the consumer on the PFAS contained in the cookware.[85] Nevada proposed exempting drugs, medical devices, and other products used to treat humans and animals regulated by the FDA or the USDA from its product bans.[86] Although Senate Bill 76 overcame the bicameralism hurdle, the Governor of Nevada vetoed the bill on June 16, 2023.[87]

Undeterred, Nevada proposed Senate Bill 173 in 2025. Much like its predecessor bill, Senate Bill 76, Senate Bill 173 proposed product bans and labeling requirements for products containing intentionally added PFAS.[88] However, Nevada took an omnibus approach to PFAS legislation with Senate Bill 173, packaging the previously unsuccessful PFAS legislation with other policy objectives, such as addressing heat island effects, reducing the use of plastic cutting boards, and regulating the provision of utensils from food delivery services.[89] On the one hand, this approach encouraged legislative support and streamlined numerous policy objectives. On the other hand, the PFAS legislation was extensively negotiated, allowing numerous amendments within the last three weeks of the legislative session that proposed replacing the criminal penalty with a civil penalty and adding an exemption for motor vehicles.[90] The increased legislative support saw Senate Bill 173 pass the Senate but ultimately fail to advance beyond the Assembly.[91]

Nevada’s repeated attempts to advance PFAS legislation prohibiting the sale and distribution of products containing PFAS signal that eventual enactment is likely, even if its progress has thus far stalled.

E. Utah

Like Nevada, the future of Utah’s legislative approach to PFAS is uncertain. Recognizing that many of its southwestern neighbors had enacted legislation extensively regulating PFAS, Utah proposed a wieldy approach in 2023 through Senate Bill 286.[92] That bill proposed requiring a third party contracting with a local educational agency to “make a good faith effort to disclose whether any good provided under the contract contains [PFAS].”[93] While Senate Bill 286 passed the Utah Senate, it failed to advance beyond the Utah House of Representatives.[94]

During the 2026 legislative session, Utah experienced a subtle shift in its approach to regulating products containing PFAS by introducing House Bill 442 and House Bill 456.[95] Beginning on December 1, 2027, House Bill 442 would require manufacturers to label packages of menstrual products if those products contain PFAS.[96] The label would be required to list the PFAS contents in order of predominance by weight, be in a conspicuous location on the outside packaging, be legible, and comply with any labeling rules the Division of Commerce makes.[97] Manufacturers could use a web page link or QR code to provide the information required in the label, and would not be required to disclose confidential business information in those labels.[98] House Bill 456 proposes a novel, yet narrow, approach to limiting the application of pesticides containing PFAS: prohibiting the application of such pesticides within 1,000 feet of a school.[99] However, House Bill 456 would allow a person to apply those pesticides if the person applying them erects signs notifying the public seventy-two hours before and seventy-two hours after application.[100]

While the fate of the bills Utah introduced during its 2026 legislative session was uncertain pending the publication of this Article, their introduction could signal heightened political momentum for such legislation.

III. Broad Commonalities and Narrow Distinctions in Southwestern PFAS Legislation

Southwestern states share interests in addressing water availability and public health concerns. However, each state also has distinct incentives for adopting PFAS legislation and, therefore, distinct objectives to achieve through such legislation. As such, PFAS legislation throughout the southwestern United States contains broad commonalities and narrow distinctions, which are most pronounced in the product bans, delayed effective dates, labeling, notification, and reporting requirements, and tailored product ban exemptions.

A. Bans on Products Containing Intentionally Added PFAS

Colorado and New Mexico ban the sale and distribution of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS, while Arizona and Nevada restrict the use of other such products. Each southwestern state similarly defines “intentionally added PFAS.” Colorado’s definition, for example, emphasizes the effect PFAS has on the ultimate product, defining “intentionally added PFAS” as “PFAS chemicals that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product that have a functional or technical effect on the product.”[101] New Mexico’s definition emphasizes whether intentionally added PFAS “at any level or concentration [. . .] is desired or expected in the final product or one of the product’s components.”[102] Although Colorado’s and New Mexico’s definitions differ slightly, the effect is all but identical: if PFAS is added to improve and is present in the product, its addition is intentional. If the addition of PFAS is intentional, the product is subject to prescribed requirements.

Apart from the definitional similarities, Colorado and New Mexico have demonstrated a pattern of concern for specific consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS. In recent years, those states have acutely focused on consumer products that tend to expose human and ecological receptors to PFAS through more direct pathways.[103] For example, New Mexico followed Colorado’s lead by banning numerous consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS with a high potential of human exposure through ingestion or dermal absorption, including cookware, floss, and food packaging.[104] Moreover, although unsuccessful, Nevada’s Senate Bill 173 proposed bans on consumer products with similar exposure pathways.[105] These examples illustrate public health priorities taking precedence, increasing the volume of legislation banning the sale and distribution of specific consumer products.

Beyond consumer products, the use of firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS has been a concern of most southwestern states for years. Indeed, Colorado and Arizona adopted legislation to rectify their concerns related to the use of firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS over five years ago.[106] Two properties of that foam, often termed “aqueous film-forming foam” or “AFFF,” may be the motivation for those concerns. First, that foam contains a fluorinated film mixed with water to create an aqueous solution.[107] Aqueous solutions often increase the mobility of their chemical contents, which, when composed of PFAS, meet little resistance when percolating into and migrating through groundwater.[108] Second, that foam was historically and repeatedly deployed in circumstances with few environmental controls. Absent those controls, firefighting foam was allowed to naturally dissipate, seeping into soil and groundwater without being tested, consolidated, or pre-treated.[109] As with consumer products with direct exposure pathways, southwestern states have acutely focused their efforts on industries manufacturing, selling, and using firefighting foam containing PFAS to address sources of PFAS contamination and exposure.

B. Delayed Effective Dates

Legislative prohibitions on products containing intentionally added PFAS uniformly include delayed timelines before the prohibitions become effective. These delayed effective dates frequently prohibit the sale or distribution of products containing intentionally added PFAS within two years of a bill’s passage. However, the delayed effective dates vary within and across southwestern states based on the type of product containing intentionally added PFAS, the anticipated public health risk of that product, and the date the legislation was passed.[110]

Colorado’s House Bill 22-1345 and Senate Bill 24-081 exemplify the complex framework of these differing standards. House Bill 22-1345 and Senate Bill 24-081, respectively passed in 2022 and 2024, codified prohibitions on the sale of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS in 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028.[111] These bills, like those in New Mexico, also include a phased approach, whereby product bans become effective later for certain products than they do for others. No clear pattern across the bills summarized above explains this discrepancy. However, as Figure 1 demonstrates, southwestern states are urgently implementing bans on products with a high potential for exposing human and ecological receptors to PFAS.

Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Utah
All Uses 2032
Artificial Turf 2026
Carpets & Rugs 2024 2028
Cleaning Products 2026/2028 2028
Commercial Food Equipment 2028
Cookware 2026 2027
Cosmetics 2025 2028
Dental Floss 2026 2027
Fabric Treatments 2024 2028
Firefighting Foam 2020* 2021 2022* 2027
Food Packaging 2024 2027
Juvenile Products 2024 2027
Menstrual Products 2026 2028
Oil and Gas Products 2024
Outdoor Apparel 2028
Ski Wax 2026 2028
Textile Furnishings 2025/2027 2028
Textiles 2028 2028
Upholstered Furniture 2025/2027 2028

Figure 1. Table illustrating delayed effective dates for legislatively established bans on products containing intentionally added PFAS and noting that Arizona and Nevada have limited their bans on firefighting foam to its use for testing or training.

Adding to this complex framework of legislatively established delayed effective dates, but not germane to this Article, are the administratively established effective dates. Those effective dates will likely be promulgated alongside administratively established restrictions on products containing intentionally added PFAS. Indeed, through House Bill 212, New Mexico vested power in the EIB to adopt rules prohibiting additional products containing PFAS from being sold or offered for sale.[112] Yet, New Mexico prohibited the EIB from setting the effective date for rules prohibiting products containing PFAS from being sold or offered for sale less than six months after their adoption.[113] Accordingly, not only must manufacturers and consumers track legislatively established effective dates, they must also track administratively established effective dates.

C. Labeling, Notification, and Reporting Requirements

The legislative bans on products containing intentionally added PFAS across the southwestern United States are often coupled with labeling, notification, and reporting requirements. Although a common theme, southwestern states’ labeling requirements are distinguishable based on the type of product requiring a label and the substance of those required labels. In addition to labeling requirements, some southwestern states have codified notification requirements for manufacturers and reporting requirements for consumers of products containing intentionally added PFAS.

Colorado’s and New Mexico’s labeling requirements illustrate the divergent labeling standards across the southwestern United States. Colorado requires manufacturers to label a specific subset of products, including cookware and “outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions.”[114] Colorado also created different standards for the label’s substance depending on the type of product. For example, manufacturers must affix a label to cookware that is in English and Spanish and reads “For more information about PFAS in this product, visit” followed by a link to a web page and a QR code.[115] Comparatively, Colorado’s labeling requirement for “outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions” requires manufacturers to affix a label to that apparel indicating that it is “Made with PFAS chemicals,” without requiring that label to be in English and Spanish or include a link to a web page or a QR code.[116] New Mexico’s approach to labeling is distinguishable from Colorado’s. Through House Bill 212, New Mexico authorized the EIB to adopt rules to require the labeling of products containing intentionally added PFAS in English and Spanish, rules that the EIB is considering for adoption.[117] As such, labeling requirements span numerous branches of government and are expected to intensify as administrative agencies act upon their delegated authority.

The notification and reporting requirements similarly vary in scope and detail across the southwestern United States. New Mexico established robust notification requirements for products containing intentionally added PFAS, requiring manufacturers to submit a report to NMED detailing, among other information, the purpose for using PFAS in the product and the amount of PFAS in the product.[118] While New Mexico’s notification requirements are specific to manufacturers selling or distributing products,[119] southwestern states have also established reporting requirements for consumers, including for those using firefighting foam containing PFAS. Nevada, for instance, requires those who discharge, use, or release such firefighting foam to report that discharge, use, or release to the Division of Environmental Protection within twenty-four hours.[120] Colorado established a similar reporting regime for firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS through the PFAS Protection Act, whereby discharges, uses, or releases are to be reported to the Water Quality Spills Hotline within twenty-four hours of that discharge, use, or release.[121] These variable labeling, notification, and reporting requirements necessitate heightened vigilance for those operating across the southwestern United States and consumer product sectors.

D. Tailored Exemptions

Southwestern states have tailored exemptions for certain manufacturers, absolving them from prior and forthcoming prohibitions on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of products containing intentionally added PFAS. These exemptions vary not only in scope but also in breadth. This variability is especially pronounced in New Mexico and Colorado, neighboring states that have adopted notably different exemptions from their respective bans.

Although New Mexico has codified sixteen exemptions from its PFAS product bans, just two align with Colorado’s codified exemptions—(1) medical devices, drugs, and the packaging of those devices and drugs if they are regulated by a federal agency, and (2) veterinary products and their packaging if they are regulated by a federal agency.[122] Of the fourteen additional exemptions, New Mexico also exempts products containing fluoropolymers, a subset of PFAS that, like other PFAS, are characterized by their durability, repellency, and chemical stability.[123] The chemical properties of fluoropolymers have produced a legislative safe harbor for industries that are heavily reliant upon that PFAS compound, including electronic, semiconductor, and automobile manufacturers.[124] Accordingly, New Mexico’s fluoropolymer exemption demonstrates its ability to customize product bans based upon the health risks and economic and industrial impact of specific PFAS compounds, offering reprieve for certain industries not expressly offered in other southwestern states.[125]

Tailored exemptions from PFAS product bans in the southwestern United States underscore the challenges posed by PFAS legislation in the region—challenges marked by broad commonalities but narrow, often critical, distinctions.

IV. Conclusion

Environmental laws are pivotal in determining where to manufacture, sell, and distribute products. Many jurisdictions in the southwestern United States have adopted PFAS legislation limiting when, where, and how products containing intentionally added PFAS may be manufactured, sold, and distributed. That legislation is curated to each state’s individual environmental priorities, public health concerns, and political climates. While these state-specific strategies aim to be responsive and adaptive, they have sewn a regional patchwork that is not only challenging to navigate but also costly and inefficient. Rapid development of southwestern PFAS legislation and federal deregulation have intensified these challenges and increased industry’s calls for federal preemption of state PFAS laws,[126] renewing a historic tension between cooperative federalism and regulatory uniformity that will surely persist beyond this précis.

  1. *Assistant Attorney General with the Environment Section of the Utah Attorney General’s Office. The views and opinions expressed in this Article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Utah Attorney General or the Utah Attorney General’s Office. ↑
  2. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), U.S. Food & Drug Admin., https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas (last visited Aug. 16, 2025). ↑
  3. Sara Samora, The History of PFAS: From World War II to Your Teflon Pan, Mfg. Dive (Dec. 6, 2023), https://www.manufacturingdive.com/news/the-history-behind-forever-chemicals-pfas-3m-dupont-pfte-pfoa-pfos/698254/. ↑
  4. Id. ↑
  5. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, Nat’l Inst. of Env’t Health Sci., https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc (last visited July 26, 2025). ↑
  6. See id. ↑
  7. RTI International, Characterizing PFAS Chemistries, Sources, Uses, and Regulatory Trends in the U.S. and International Markets 3-2 (2023). ↑
  8. PFOA Stewardship Baseline Year Summary Report, U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/pfoa-stewardship-program-baseline-year-summary-report (last visited July 26, 2025). ↑
  9. See 40 C.F.R. § 141.61(c)(2). ↑
  10. See 40 C.F.R. § 705. ↑
  11. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, Addressing PFAS Discharges in NPDES Permits and Through the Pretreatment Program and Monitoring Programs (Dec. 5, 2022). ↑
  12. See 89 Fed. Reg. 39124 (May 8, 2024); see also 40 C.F.R. § 302.4. ↑
  13. Memorandum on Regulatory Freeze Pending Review, 90 Fed. Reg. 8249 (Jan. 20, 2025). ↑
  14. Administrator Zeldin Announces Major EPA Actions to Combat PFAS Contamination, U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency (Apr. 28, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-zeldin-announces-major-epa-actions-combat-pfas-contamination. ↑
  15. Id. ↑
  16. 90 Fed. Reg. 20236–39 (May 13, 2025). ↑
  17. See Am. Water Works Ass’n v. EPA, No. 24-01188 (D.C. Cir. 2024). ↑
  18. EPA Announces It Will Keep Maximum Contaminant Levels for PFOA, PFOS, U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency (May 14, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-it-will-keep-maximum-contaminant-levels-pfoa-pfos. ↑
  19. Id. ↑
  20. See Elizabeth Gribkoff, Manufacturers Prepare for Maine’s Sweeping PFAS Restriction, Mfg. Dive (May 13, 2025), https://www.manufacturingdive.com/news/manufacturers-prepare-for-maines-sweeping-pfas-restrictions/745460/ (explaining that Maine was the first state to outright ban PFAS in all consumer products but recently delayed that ban’s effective date to 2032). ↑
  21. See Daniel Kampf, Here’s an Update on PFAS Legislation in the States (Bills Addressing “Forever Chemicals”), MultiState (May 28, 2025), https://www.multistate.us/insider/2025/5/28/heres-an-update-on-pfas-legislation-in-the-states-bills-addressing-forever-chemicals. ↑
  22. For purposes of this Article, the term “southwestern United States” is used to refer to Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. ↑
  23. A Closer Look: Temperature and Drought in the Southwest, U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/southwest (last visited Jul. 13, 2025). ↑
  24. Heather Sackett, Dwindling Water Supply, Legal Questions push Colorado River in ‘Wildly Uncharted Territory’, The Aspen Times (Apr. 2, 2025), https://www.aspentimes.com/news/dwindling-water-supply-legal-questions-push-colorado-river-into-wildly-uncharted-territory/. ↑
  25. Nat’l Conf. of State Legis., State Water Governance: Approaches from Six Western States, 3–4 (Nov. 2022). ↑
  26. H.B. 19-1279, 2019 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2019) (codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-5-1301 et seq.). ↑
  27. H.B. 20-1119, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2020). ↑
  28. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-5-1303(1) (2024); Id. § 23-33.5-1234(1). ↑
  29. S.B. 20-218, 2020 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2020). ↑
  30. H.B. 22-1345, 2022 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2022) (codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-601 et seq.) ↑
  31. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-5-1303.5 (2024). ↑
  32. Id. § 25-15-604(1). ↑
  33. Id. § 25-15-604(3). ↑
  34. Id. § 25-15-604(4). ↑
  35. Id. § 25-15-604(2)(a)–(b). ↑
  36. S.B. 24-081, 2024 Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2024). ↑
  37. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-604(3.5)(a)–(e) (2024). ↑
  38. Id. § 25-15-604(5)(a)–(d). ↑
  39. Id. § 25-15-603(16.7)(a)(I)–(III). ↑
  40. Id. § 25-15-604(2.5)(a). ↑
  41. Id. § 25-15-603(20)(c)(I)–(III). ↑
  42. S.B. 275, 2020 Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2020). ↑
  43. S.B. 8, 2021 Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2021). ↑
  44. H.B. 212, 2025 Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2025); H.B. 140, 2025 Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2025). ↑
  45. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-15-1 (2025). ↑
  46. Id. § 74-15-5(B). ↑
  47. Id. § 74-15-5(A)(1)–(5). ↑
  48. Id. § 74-15-6. ↑
  49. Id. ↑
  50. Id. § 74-15-6(B). ↑
  51. Id. § 74-15-6(C). ↑
  52. Id. § 74-15-3(B). ↑
  53. Id. § 74-15-3(C). ↑
  54. Id. § 74-15-3(E). ↑
  55. Id. § 74-15-3(D). ↑
  56. Id. ↑
  57. Id. § 74-15-3(A). ↑
  58. Id. § 74-15-6(E). ↑
  59. Id. § 74-4-3(K)(2)(a), § 74-4-4(M). ↑
  60. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.30–.35 (2025). ↑
  61. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-4-4.2 (2025); Id. § 74-4-7(C). ↑
  62. Id. § 74-4-4(M). ↑
  63. See Danielle Prokop, Cannon appeals NMED fine over PFAS spill, Source NM (Feb. 18, 2025, 10:05 AM), https://sourcenm.com/2025/02/18/cannon-appeals-nmed-fine-over-pfas-spill/ (describing NMED’s enforcement action for an alleged PFAS release occurring in 2024); see also New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez Files Amended Complaint for ‘Forever Chemical’ Cleanup Under New EPA Regulations, N.M. Dep’t of Just. (July 8, 2024), https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-attorney-general-raul-torrez-files-amended-complaint-for-forever-chemical-cleanup-under-new-epa-regulations/ (summarizing the addition of claims and parties to New Mexico’s second amended complaint). ↑
  64. S.B. 1526, 54th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2019); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-1696 (2019). ↑
  65. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-1696(B) (2019). ↑
  66. See id. § 36-1696. ↑
  67. H.B. 2646, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2025). ↑
  68. S.B. 1391, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2025). ↑
  69. Id. ↑
  70. Id. ↑
  71. At the time this Article was being prepared for publication, these four bills were pending before the Arizona State Legislature and are therefore excluded from the discussion of broad commonalities and narrow distinctions in enacted southwestern PFAS legislation below. ↑
  72. H.B. 2517, 57th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2026). ↑
  73. H.B. 2640, 57th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2026). ↑
  74. H.B. 2641, 57th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2026). ↑
  75. H.B. 2642, 57th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2026). ↑
  76. A.B. 97, 81st Leg. Sess. (Nev. 2021). ↑
  77. S.B. 76, 82nd Leg. Sess. (Nev. 2023); Letter from Joe Lombardo, Governor of Nev., to Francisco Aguilar, Nev. Sec’y of State, (June 16, 2023) (on file with author) ↑
  78. S.B. 173, 83rd Leg. Sess. (Nev. 2025). ↑
  79. A.B. 97, 81st Leg. Sess. (Nev. 2021); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 459.682(1) (2025). ↑
  80. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 459.682(1) (2025). ↑
  81. Id. § 459.684(1)–(2). ↑
  82. Id. ↑
  83. Id. § 459.686. ↑
  84. S.B. 76, 82nd Leg. Sess. (Nev. 2023). ↑
  85. Id. ↑
  86. Id. ↑
  87. Nevada Labeling Bill Vetoed Following Bakers, Business Groups, Push, Am. Bakers Ass’n (June 20, 2023), https://americanbakers.org/news/nevada-labeling-bill-vetoed-following-bakers-business-groups-push. ↑
  88. S.B. 173, 83rd Leg. Sess. (Nev. 2025). ↑
  89. Id. ↑
  90. Id. ↑
  91. Id. ↑
  92. S.B. 286, 2023 Gen. Sess. (Utah 2023). ↑
  93. Id. ↑
  94. Id. ↑
  95. At the time this Article was being prepared for publication, these two bills were pending before the Utah State Legislature and are therefore excluded from the discussion of broad commonalities and narrow distinctions in enacted southwestern PFAS legislation below. ↑
  96. H.B. 442, 2026 Gen. Sess. (Utah 2026). ↑
  97. Id. ↑
  98. Id. ↑
  99. H.B. 456, 2026 Gen. Sess. (Utah 2026). ↑
  100. Id. ↑
  101. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-603(12)(a) (2025). ↑
  102. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-15-2(N) (2025). ↑
  103. See infra Figure 1. ↑
  104. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-15-3(B)(1)–(3) (2025); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-604(1)(c), (3.5)(b)–(c) (2025). ↑
  105. S.B. 173, 83rd Gen. Sess. (Nev. 2025). ↑
  106. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-604(2), (3), (3.5), (5) (2025). ↑
  107. Interstate Tech. Regul. Council, Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Fact Sheet 2 (2023). ↑
  108. See Addressing Challenges of PFAS: Protecting Groundwater and Treating Contaminated Sources, U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency (Sep. 20, 2021), https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/addressing-challenges-pfas-protecting-groundwater-and-treating-contaminated-sources. ↑
  109. Interstate Tech. Regul. Council, supra note 106, at 2. ↑
  110. See infra Figure 1. ↑
  111. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-604(1)–(5) (2025). ↑
  112. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-15-3(D) (2025). ↑
  113. Id. ↑
  114. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-604(2)(a), (2.5)(a) (2025). ↑
  115. Id. § 25-15-604(2)(a). ↑
  116. Id. § 25-15-604(25)(a). ↑
  117. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-15-4(B)(1) (2025); Prohibitions on Products Containing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances; Currently Unavoidable Use; Reporting; Labeling; Testing; Fees and Penalties (proposed Dec. 23, 2025) (to be codified at N.M. Code R. § 20.13.2 et seq.), https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-10-06-PFAS-Protection-Act-Proposed-Rules.pdf (proposing to require manufacturers to label all products containing intentionally added PFAS prior to the sale of that product). ↑
  118. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-15-5(B) (2025). ↑
  119. Id. ↑
  120. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 459.684(1)–(2) (2024). ↑
  121. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-5-1303.5(1)(d) (2025). ↑
  122. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 74-15-3(A)(1)–(16) (2025); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-603(20)(c)(I)–(III) (2025); See also S.B. 173, 83rd Leg. Sess. (Nev. 2025). ↑
  123. Sarah Parker et al., New Mexico Among States Exempting Fluoropolymers from PFAS Bans, Exponent (May 28, 2025), https://www.exponent.com/article/new-mexico-among-states-exempting-fluoropolymers-pfas-bans. ↑
  124. Id. ↑
  125. See id. ↑
  126. Pat Rizzuto, Industries Answer Trump’s Call for State PFAS Laws Causing Harm, Bloomberg L. (Oct. 15, 2025, 3:30 AM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/industries-answer-trumps-call-for-state-pfas-laws-causing-harm. ↑