In previous blogs, we covered various state environmental laws that can affect companies operating outside of specific state boundaries. In this blog, we update some of those state environmental laws, including a new California law that tracks per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in pesticides.
Updating Minnesota’s PFAS Reporting Requirements
In our May 6, 2026, blog, we discussed Minnesota’s PFAS Reporting Information for Manufacturers (PRISM) public search portal. Reports were due on September 15, 2026. The law applies to products distributed or sold in Minnesota and has two functions: gathering information and establishing prohibitions.
As of October 21, 2026, the Minnesota Pollution Control Authority (MPCA) has published 284,627 rows of data covering about 44,865 products. This represents about 20% of reports received to date.
According to the guidance document, “The Guide is intended for consumers of data to search PFAS data reported by manufacturers in accordance with Amara’s Law. Consumers of data include: potential purchasers or owners of consumer products; researchers; non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and government agencies.”
See the PFAS Reporting Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM).
State environmental laws that may affect your company include Minnesota’s PRISM reporting requirement, California’s PFAS in pesticides reporting, and Oregon’s EPR requirements.
California’s Bill Tracks PFAS in Pesticides
On September 27, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1603. The bill requires the California Department of Pesticide Regulation by January 1, 2028, to publish a list of registered pesticides containing PFAS and describe statewide use trends.
The Department of Pesticide Regulation states:
This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, or on or before the posting of the pesticide use reporting database containing 2026 data, whichever occurs first, and annually thereafter, to indicate if a pesticide contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pesticide ingredients, as defined, in the pesticide use reporting database on its internet website, include PFAS as a category of interest for purposes of that database, and include pesticide use trends of PFAS pesticide ingredients from the pesticide database in the pesticide use annual report and other relevant pesticide use reporting documents.
From Bloomberg Law: “California’s agricultural community worked with multiple committees to narrow the scope of the bill so it wouldn’t put farmers at a competitive disadvantage, said Taylor Triffo, managing director of legislative affairs at Kahn, Soares & Conway LLP, which represented agricultural groups in debates over the legislation.”
“The final law won’t have an immediate impact on farmers, she said. ‘The question will be what will advocacy groups do with this information’ ” (our emphasis).
Importantly, as the law is written, registrants do not have any new disclosure obligations. This falls on the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Additionally, there are no new reporting requirements or labeling requirements (source: Crowell).
Appealing Oregon’s EPR Ruling
In our August 13, 2026, blog, we discussed the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs, including the EPR program in Oregon. As we mentioned, this rule was being challenged. However, on August 27, 2026, the US District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in favor of Oregon’s EPR program.
The National Association of Wholesaler Distributors (NAW) filed notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The NAW states that Oregon’s law is unconstitutional.
The NAW says its appeal focuses on two principal issues. From Recycling Today:
“First, the organization believes Oregon’s EPR law disrupts nationally integrated supply chains by imposing fees on wholesaler-distributors with no control over the packaging or destination of their products, forcing multistate companies to reengineer their operations and, in some cases, route products around Oregon entirely.”
“NAW claims the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality anticipated producers would recover program costs from customers in other states and cited that as a way to reduce price impacts on Oregonians. NAW argues funding new statewide infrastructure at the expense of out-of-state wholesaler-distributors and consumers violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”
“Second, NAW says Oregon delegated authority to develop and run the EPR program and to set and collect producer fees to the Circular Action Alliance, which it describes as a ‘private organization with its own business interests.’ ”
States are enacting more environmental laws that have the potential to reach beyond their boundaries. This puts increased importance on monitoring federal and state environmental regulatory developments. We will continue to try and do our part.
Environmental Assistance
If you have questions or need assistance with an environmental matter, we can help. We have decades of hands-on experience in assessment/remediation, and we have provided litigation support since 1988. For more information, contact Jeffrey Bolin, M.S., CHMM, at 248-932-0228, Ext. 125, or Matthew Schroeder, M.S., P.E., Ext. 117.
Alan Hahn drafted this blog. Alan has an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies and completed a graduate program in Environmental Management. He has worked in environmental management for more than 45 years. He has written hundreds of blogs and articles. His published work includes Michigan Lawyers Weekly, Detroiter, Michigan Forward, GreenStone Partners, Manure Manager Magazine, Progressive Dairy, and HazMat Magazine.
Jeffrey Bolin, M.S., reviewed this blog. Jeff is a partner and senior scientist at Dragun Corporation. He is a published author, a frequent speaker, and an expert witness. His expertise in environmental due diligence, PFAS, vapor intrusion, and site assessments has led to projects in the US, Canada, and overseas. See Jeff’s Bio.
Follow Dragun Corporation on LinkedIn, X, or Facebook.
Sign up for our monthly environmental newsletter.
Principled Foundation | Thoughtful Advice | Smart Solutions
Established in 1988