Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and released it for public comment. CCL 6 identifies contaminants that are not yet regulated but are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require future regulation. The draft list includes four contaminant groups — microplastics, pharmaceuticals, per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and disinfection byproducts — along with 75 individual chemicals and nine microbes that may be found in drinking water. Although PFAS were included on prior lists, this is the first time the EPA has designated microplastics or pharmaceuticals as priority contaminant groups. Inclusion on the draft CCL 6 signals an emerging concern about these new contaminant groups and the potential for future regulatory action.

The European Commission (“Commission”) has launched a four-week feedback period — open until June 3, 2026 — on a draft delegated act to revise the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (“ESRS 2.0”).  Ultimately, EU companies in scope of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”) will have to draft their annual sustainability statements in accordance with…

U.S. EPA is withdrawing its proposed rule to list nine PFAS as RCRA hazardous constituents.  U.S.EPA announced the withdrawal in the Federal Register on May 8, 2026.  In announcing the withdrawal, U.S.EPA stated the proposed rule is not necessary since “existing regulations provide the tools to develop protective permit conditions, when necessary, without the…

Parties intervening in a CEQA case and actively litigating to defend the agency’s challenged decision in order to protect a direct and immediate interest are subject to being held jointly and severally liable for a successful plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, just like respondent agencies and real parties who similarly oppose such a lawsuit.  This is the lesson taught by the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 2) in its published decision, filed April 29, 2026, affirming the trial court’s $857,000 joint-and-several CCP § 1021.5 fee award against respondent Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), named real parties, and Croplife America (“Croplife” or “Intervenors”), a group of trade associations that had intervened to defend the CEQA litigation. Raptors are the Solution v. Croplife America (1st Dist. 2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 237.  Intervenors represented developers, manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of anticoagulant rodenticides which were the subject of DPR’s challenged decisions, and had successfully moved to intervene as of right in the action under CCP § 389(a) on the basis that their members had immediate, direct, and substantial financial and operational interests in the matter in litigation that would not be adequately represented by the initially named real parties or DPR.

Regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products continues to accelerate across the United States at the state level. In addition to phase-outs and bans on certain consumer products containing PFAS, state regulators are turning to labeling requirements as a tool to drive transparency and liability.

One notable recent development comes from New Mexico. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) formally proposed a rule to require consumer-facing labels on products containing intentionally added PFAS. On March 23, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NMEIB) officially approved the rule, making New Mexico the first state to require such labels on all products containing PFAS, even if those products are currently exempt from reporting/disclosure obligations to the state. The labeling requirements will go into effect January 1, 2027.

Although the precise label is not yet finalized, the required label is expected to consist of an Erlenmeyer flask image containing the word “PFAS.” For products other than complex durable goods, this label will be required to appear on the product and in some cases the packaging as well. For complex durable goods (defined to include products with a useful life of at least five years and composed of at least 100 components) the label need not appear on the product but must be included in a consumer-facing product specification sheet and operation and maintenance manual.

After much anticipation and delay, California’s Office of Administrative Law has officially finalized the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s permanent regulations for the state’s extended producer responsibility program. As we previously reported, the regulations were delayed last March over concerns about cost to businesses and consumers.Continue Reading ›

In April 2026, EPA released a proposal that, if finalized, would begin the process to potentially regulate the presence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, by designating them as “Candidate Contaminants.”  This proposal is likely to be of significant interest to pharmaceutical manufacturers, given that it entails EPA evaluating, in detail for the first time, potential…