HB 2279
In CommitteeHouse
Agriculture/PFAS chemicals
Evaluating the use of PFAS chemicals in agriculture.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires the Washington State Department of Agriculture to evaluate whether fertilizers and pesticides contain harmful PFAS chemicals and to establish rules for approving or rejecting products based on those findings. It aims to reduce exposure to these persistent 'forever chemicals' in agriculture and food production.
- Directs the Washington State Department of Agriculture to evaluate fertilizers and pesticides for PFAS chemicals (also called 'forever chemicals') and establish criteria for registering or canceling product registrations.
- Requires the Department to establish evaluation criteria for PFAS in fertilizers by December 31, 2026, and begin reviewing existing fertilizer registrations starting December 31, 2027.
- Requires the Department to establish evaluation criteria for PFAS in pesticides by December 31, 2026, and begin reviewing new pesticide registrations starting December 31, 2027.
- Authorizes the Department to refuse or cancel registrations of fertilizer or pesticide products that contain PFAS chemicals not meeting the new evaluation criteria.
- Amends existing laws to explicitly include PFAS chemical content as a valid reason for canceling or refusing registration of agricultural products.
Who is affected
- Washington farmers and agricultural producers — Farmers and agricultural producers may face changes in which fertilizers and pesticides they can legally use, depending on PFAS content in products.
- Fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers and distributors — Companies that manufacture or sell fertilizers and pesticides in Washington must ensure their products meet new PFAS evaluation criteria to remain registered and available for sale.
- Washington residents and consumers — Consumers may benefit from reduced exposure to harmful PFAS chemicals in food and water, as the bill aims to limit use of PFAS-containing agricultural products.
- Washington State Department of Agriculture — The agency will be responsible for developing new evaluation standards, reviewing existing product registrations, and enforcing restrictions on PFAS-containing products.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Reduced PFAS contamination in food, water, and soil will lower long-term health risks for Washington residents—including cancer, immune dysfunction, and developmental issues—particularly benefiting vulnerable populations like children and pregnant people.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2, Sec. 3(1), Sec. 5(1)By eliminating PFAS-containing fertilizers and pesticides, the bill helps prevent further accumulation of persistent 'forever chemicals' in Washington’s ecosystems, protecting soil health, aquatic life, and drinking water sources.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2), Sec. 5(2)Proactive regulation of PFAS in agricultural inputs reduces community exposure risks and aligns Washington with emerging federal EPA standards, enhancing long-term public health resilience.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2, Sec. 3(1), Sec. 5(1)Reduced environmental contamination from PFAS supports healthier school environments—especially in rural agricultural communities—by lowering airborne or soil-borne exposure risks near farms.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2), Sec. 5(2)By limiting PFAS leaching into groundwater and soil, the bill helps protect residential wells and rural housing areas from contamination, supporting safe drinking water access.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2, Sec. 3(1), Sec. 5(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Farmers and pesticide/fertilizer distributors may face increased compliance costs and potential supply chain disruptions as they transition away from PFAS-containing products, especially if alternatives are scarce or more expensive.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2, Sec. 3(1), Sec. 5(1)The Department of Agriculture will incur new administrative and technical costs to develop PFAS evaluation criteria, conduct product reviews, and enforce restrictions—costs likely borne by state taxpayers and potentially diverting resources from other agricultural programs.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact (no specified funding source)Small-scale manufacturers and importers of fertilizers/pesticides may struggle to afford the testing and regulatory compliance required to maintain registration, potentially reducing product diversity or increasing prices for all users.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(2), Sec. 5(2)Agricultural producers using PFAS-containing products may face temporary yield or quality impacts during the transition to alternative inputs if substitutes are less effective or not yet widely available.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2, Sec. 3(2), Sec. 5(2)Without dedicated funding, implementation delays or inconsistent enforcement could weaken the bill’s environmental goals, especially if the Department lacks resources to proactively monitor or audit product compliance.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact (no specified funding source)
Who Is Most Affected
Farmers may benefit from reduced long-term environmental and health risks to workers and communities, but short-term compliance costs and potential input shortages could strain small operations.
Large chemical manufacturers with PFAS-containing products face the highest compliance burden and potential market exit, while smaller firms without PFAS products may gain market share—overall negative for incumbent PFAS producers.
Consumers benefit from safer food and water, especially low-income and rural communities near agricultural areas who face disproportionate PFAS exposure risks.
The Department gains new authority but faces significant resource and capacity challenges without dedicated funding, potentially straining existing programs.