Vermont's PFAS Waste Ban: What It Signals for Municipal Budgets

As the passage of PFAS-related regulations accelerates nationwide, Vermont is proposing a significant policy change: banning the land application and sale of biosolids, sludge, and septage that may contain the chemicals. The proposed legislation will likely increase disposal costs for wastewater utilities and alter how special districts manage biosolid byproducts.

This article outlines how the Vermont proposal connects to broader conversations around utility funding, regulatory adaptation, and long-term planning in wastewater utilities, special districts, and municipalities.

The Vermont Proposal: A Snapshot

Vermont lawmakers are considering legislation that would prohibit the reuse of materials potentially impacted by PFAS contamination, even though the state already enforces stringent screening standards for land-applied biosolids. The proposal has generated support and opposition from different stakeholder groups.

Key points raised by industry stakeholders and environmental organizations include:

• Limited disposal options for biosolids

• Increased reliance on landfills, which may already be nearing capacity

• Rising transportation and tipping fees

• Potential disruption of nutrient recycling and waste recovery programs

Small and midsize systems may face notable budgetary impacts from changes in waste management practices.

‍

Learn more: Seven Days Vermont - PFAS Waste Ban Legislation

‍

Wastewater Utilities and Municipalities at the Epicenter

Water and wastewater utilities, whether governed as municipal departments or independent special districts, are directly impacted by policy changes like the one proposed in Vermont. Many are funded primarily through user fees rather than state or municipal tax revenues. This model provides financial independence but also places the burden of compliance and operational changes directly on ratepayers.

In the context of the Vermont proposal:

• Municipalities and special districts alike may have limited flexibility to absorb increased costs from policy shifts

• These systems are already managing evolving PFAS compliance mandates

• Many serve rural or smaller communities that may lack access to large-scale treatment infrastructure or regional landfills

This issue isn’t limited to Vermont. Similar regulatory restrictions have already taken effect in Maine, offering an early view into how these challenges may unfold elsewhere.  

What’s Already Happening in Maine

While Vermont’s legislation is still under consideration, Maine has already enacted a ban on the land application of PFAS-contaminated biosolids — and the financial impact has been immediate.

Utilities in Maine have seen disposal costs double or triple due to limited alternatives like landfill or incineration. These changes are particularly burdensome for smaller systems with tight operating budgets. In response, multiple municipal and utility agencies have pursued litigation to recover those costs and protect ratepayers from shouldering the full financial burden.

Press coverage across the state has highlighted how these sudden shifts have disrupted long-standing practices and created urgent budget concerns. For utilities in Vermont and beyond, Maine’s experience underscores the importance of early financial planning and risk assessment.

Operational Shifts and Cost Implications

Biosolid management is a core operational responsibility for wastewater treatment facilities. In many systems, land application serves as a cost-effective disposal method that also benefits agricultural users through nutrient recycling. If Vermont’s legislation passes:

• Utilities may be forced to shift to landfill disposal, which can be significantly more expensive

• Transportation costs could rise due to greater distances to approved disposal sites

• Smaller systems might need to collaborate with regional partners or enter into new service agreements

These potential shifts could strain existing budgets or require new funding mechanisms. Utilities and special districts will need to evaluate not just the logistical impacts, but also how to communicate changes to ratepayers and oversight boards.

‍

More detail: EPA - Biosolids Management Basics

A Case for Long-Term Planning

The proposed legislation highlights a broader trend of increasing regulatory scrutiny related to PFAS and other emerging contaminants. While the immediate focus is on biosolid disposal, the underlying financial and operational pressures are likely to be felt by utilities nationwide.

As utilities, municipalities, and special districts assess their options, long-term planning becomes critical. Legal pathways, such as contamination-related cost recovery through litigation, can serve as part of a broader resilience strategy, not as a replacement for short-term budgeting, but as a supplement to address potential future liabilities and infrastructure needs.

Risk mitigation steps may include:

• Investing in more advanced monitoring and detection technologies

• Collaborating with engineering and legal teams to assess potential PFAS liabilities

• Engaging in state-level policy discussions to advocate for practical implementation timelines and support

Additional Resources:

• Environmental Working Group - PFAS Contamination Litigation

• EPA - Economic Analysis for PFAS Regulation in Drinking Water

Final Takeaway

Vermont’s proposed PFAS waste ban illustrates how regulatory developments can influence the financial and operational decisions of special districts. For utility leaders and municipal managers, keeping pace with evolving state and federal policies is essential.

Key considerations going forward include:

• Monitoring PFAS legislation in other jurisdictions

• Evaluating current exposure risks and disposal strategies

• Incorporating legal and financial risk planning into long-term infrastructure decisions

• Communicating clearly with governing boards and the public about regulatory impacts and utility responses

Maine’s early adoption of similar restrictions shows what’s at stake. Utilities there are already experiencing increased disposal costs and turning to litigation to recover them — a path that may soon be relevant to peers in Vermont and beyond.

At SL Environmental Law Group, we help agencies hold polluters accountable and recover the costs of PFAS cleanup. To date, on behalf of 400+ clients, our firm has helped recover over $2 billion in settlements and trials. If you would like to explore whether your agency has a viable claim, you can reach out to our team to discuss.

Track PFAS developments nationwide: National Conference of State Legislatures - PFAS Legislation