The EPA Just Rolled Back PFAS Protections — Your Legal Rights Did Not Roll Back With Them
You may have heard the news: the federal government announced it is walking back some of the drinking-water limits it placed on “forever chemicals” — the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that have been detected in water systems across the country, including right here in Florida. The rollback rescinds or reconsiders federal limits for four specific PFAS compounds and extends the compliance deadline for two others. Environmental advocates called it a retreat. The administration called it “legally defensible and scientifically grounded.”
If you live in the Tampa Bay area — if your family drank the water that Tampa Bay Water distributes, or if you or a loved one attended or worked at the University of South Florida campus where testing found PFAS at six times the recommended limit — you are probably not thinking about politics right now. You are thinking about what is in your blood. You are thinking about the kidney cancer diagnosis, the thyroid disease, the testicular cancer, the immune disorder that seemed to come from nowhere. You are wondering whether the government’s retreat means you have lost your chance to hold someone accountable.
You have not. Here is the single most important thing this page will tell you: regulatory limits and civil liability are two separate systems. The EPA’s decision to relax drinking-water standards does not eliminate your right to sue the chemical manufacturers who discharged PFAS into your water supply. It does not erase the contamination that already happened. It does not cancel the diseases that exposure may have caused. The manufacturers — companies like 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and others who produced and released these compounds for decades — remain answerable in civil court regardless of what the drinking-water rule says today.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We built this page because the people who need it most are reading at 2 a.m., trying to figure out whether the water their children drank for years is the reason someone in their family got sick. This is what we know, what the law actually says, and what you can still do.
Florida’s PFAS Contamination: Tampa Bay Water, USF Tampa, and the Exposure Map
The policy announcement came from Washington, D.C. But the practical impact falls on communities in Florida and other states with documented PFAS contamination of municipal water supplies.
Tampa Bay Water and the Regional Exposure
Tampa Bay Water is the regional wholesale water utility serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. PFAS contamination in groundwater sources in this region has been a documented litigation and remediation focus. Tampa Bay Water pursued claims against PFAS chemical manufacturers and received more than $21 million in settlement — a figure that reflects the utility’s infrastructure-remediation costs, not individual injury compensation. That settlement is public record, and it tells you two things: first, the contamination was real enough that major manufacturers paid to resolve it; second, the money that flowed to the utility does not flow automatically to the families who drank the water.
USF Tampa: Six Times the Limit
Drinking-water testing at the University of South Florida’s Tampa campus revealed PFAS levels at six times the recommended limit. That is not a marginal reading. It means students, faculty, staff, and visitors who consumed campus water during the contamination period were exposed to concentrations that far exceeded what health authorities consider acceptable. The population exposed on that campus — and the timeframe of exposure — are questions that water-sampling data and institutional records can answer.
Why Florida’s Geography Matters to Your Case
Florida has been an active venue for PFAS-related litigation. The state’s statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death generally runs from the date of discovery or manifestation of injury — a principle that matters enormously in toxic tort cases where latency periods for PFAS-linked cancers can span decades. The discovery rule means the clock may not start ticking on the day you were exposed. It may start on the day you were diagnosed — or the day you reasonably should have connected your diagnosis to the exposure.
That distinction is the difference between a case that is alive and one that has quietly died. But it is also a rule with edges, exceptions, and state-specific contours that must be confirmed for your individual situation. Do not assume you have plenty of time. Do not assume you are too late. Find out.
Who Is Legally Responsible: The PFAS Defendant Map
When people ask “who do I sue for PFAS contamination,” the answer is not the EPA. The answer is not your local water utility, at least not primarily. The answer is the chain of companies that made, used, and discharged these chemicals into the environment.
PFAS Chemical Manufacturers
The primary defendants in PFAS toxic tort litigation are the companies that manufactured these compounds and released them into waterways and groundwater. The dossier identifies these entities by category:
- 3M Company — one of the largest historical producers of PFAS compounds, including PFOS
- DuPont / Chemours — DuPont manufactured PFOA at its Washington Works facility in West Virginia (the origin of the C8 contamination); Chemours was spun off from DuPont in 2015 and holds significant legacy PFAS liability
- Daikin Industries — a Japanese chemical manufacturer with PFAS production
- Archroma — a specialty chemicals company with PFAS-related operations
These entities have faced and settled multi-district litigation over PFAS contamination of public water supplies nationwide. The internal corporate documents uncovered in that prior litigation — showing what these companies knew about PFAS health risks and when they knew it — provide a roadmap for demonstrating conscious disregard, the evidentiary foundation for punitive damages.
Contaminated-Site Polluters
Beyond the chemical manufacturers, the entities whose operations discharged PFAS into groundwater feeding municipal wells include:
- Military installations — where aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) firefighting foam was used extensively in training exercises, releasing PFAS into soil and groundwater
- Airports — where AFFF foam was used for fire suppression and training
- Industrial facilities — aerospace, textile, paper, electroplating, and other manufacturing operations that used PFAS in their processes
- Firefighting-training facilities — where repeated AFFF discharge concentrated PFAS contamination
Public Water Utilities
Utilities that distributed PFAS-contaminated drinking water may face claims in some circumstances, though many carry statutory immunity defenses that vary by state. The utility’s role is more often evidentiary than defendant — their water-sampling records, treatment records, and contamination notifications document the exposure timeline.
The CERCLA Cleanup Track — Still Alive
While the EPA’s drinking-water rollback made headlines, a separate regulatory track remains intact and untouched: the CERCLA hazardous-substance designation for PFOA and PFOS. Under the federal Superfund law, any entity that released a pound or more of PFOA or PFOS in any 24-hour period must report those releases, and the designation opens manufacturer and polluter liability for cleanup costs. The CERCLA liability framework is strict, joint-and-several, and retroactive — meaning it reaches conduct that occurred decades before the designation. That track is separate from the drinking-water standards and was not rolled back.
Who Can File a PFAS Lawsuit: Exposure Criteria and Diagnosis Requirements
Not everyone who was exposed to PFAS has a lawsuit. Not everyone who has a PFAS-linked disease was exposed through contaminated drinking water. The intake question is whether the exposure, the disease, and the defendant can be connected.
The Exposure Element
To build a PFAS case, you need to establish:
- You were exposed to PFAS-contaminated water — typically by living in a service area with documented contamination (like the Tampa Bay Water service area or the USF Tampa campus during the contamination period)
- The exposure was significant and sustained — not a single glass of water, but years of drinking, cooking, and bathing with contaminated supply
- The contamination can be traced to identifiable sources — manufacturer discharge, AFFF foam use at a nearby military base or airport, industrial facility discharge
The Diagnosis Element
A PFAS lawsuit requires a diagnosis of a condition that is scientifically linked to PFAS exposure. The strongest cases involve:
- Kidney cancer (renal cell carcinoma) — linked to PFOA in the C8 Science Panel findings
- Testicular cancer — linked to PFOA in the C8 findings
- Thyroid disease — linked to PFOA in the C8 findings
- Ulcerative colitis — linked to PFOA in the C8 findings
- Pregnancy-induced hypertension / preeclampsia — linked to PFOA in the C8 findings
If your diagnosis is one of these and you lived in a documented contamination area, the medical and exposure elements of a case may align. If your diagnosis is a different condition — or if the PFAS compounds in your water were primarily the four being rescinded rather than PFOA/PFOS — the causation analysis is more complex and requires individualized evaluation.
Blood Serum Testing
PFAS can be measured in blood serum. A blood test can document the specific compounds and concentrations in your body, differentiating exposed from non-exposed populations and providing individualized causation evidence. This testing is available through specialized laboratories. Baseline testing should occur as early as possible because the evidentiary value of the test degrades as exposure continues and PFAS levels change over time.
Important: We cannot tell you that your specific disease was caused by PFAS exposure. Causation in toxic tort cases is complex and individualized. What we can tell you is whether your exposure history and diagnosis profile warrant a full legal evaluation — and that evaluation is free.
The Evidence Clock: What Records Exist and How Fast They Disappear
In PFAS litigation, the evidence that proves your case is on a timer. Some of it is already gone. Some of it is dying right now. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally vanish.
Historical Water Sampling Data
Tampa Bay Water and Hillsborough County utility systems maintain historical PFAS water-sampling data that establishes contamination levels, duration, and geographic scope. These records are the foundation for exposure mapping and causation analysis. But the EPA’s regulatory changes may alter testing requirements and retention mandates going forward. Utility records should be preserved through litigation holds — and the demand for preservation should go out early, before the records cycle out of the utility’s retention system.
USF Tampa Campus Records
The USF Tampa campus drinking-water testing results and remediation records document the specific contamination event at six times the recommended limit. These records identify the exposed population and the timeframe. Institutional records are subject to standard records-management cycles — overwrites and routine destruction can erase them if no one demands they be saved.
Internal Manufacturer Documents
The internal corporate documents of 3M, DuPont, and Chemours on PFAS health-effects knowledge are the core punitive-damages evidence. Many of these documents were already produced in prior multi-district litigation proceedings. Newly filed cases can leverage existing document productions — but each case must independently secure access and authenticate the records.
AFFF Firefighting Foam Records
Department of Defense and facility records documenting AFFF firefighting-foam usage and discharge at military installations and airports near Tampa Bay identify major PFAS point sources contributing to groundwater contamination. These records are subject to federal records schedules. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests should be filed promptly — the records exist but they age out of federal retention windows.
Blood Serum PFAS Testing Results
Blood serum testing for exposed individuals establishes specific causation by confirming bioaccumulation. This is biological evidence — its utility degrades as exposure continues and PFAS levels change. Baseline testing should occur as early as possible. Every month that passes, the evidence of what was in your blood at the time of peak exposure becomes less precise.
The Preservation Letter
The single most important early step in any PFAS case is the preservation letter — a formal written demand to the utility, the manufacturer, and any other evidence custodian ordering them to freeze all relevant records before routine destruction schedules erase them. The preservation letter is what converts a routine retention cycle into a legal obligation to save the evidence. If the custodian lets the evidence die after receiving that letter, the law answers with an adverse-inference instruction — the jury may assume the lost record was as bad as the plaintiff says — and sanctions.
This is not a theoretical concern. In PFAS litigation, the records that decide cases are decades old. The companies that hold them have every incentive to let them age out. The day you call a lawyer is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
The Proof Story: How a PFAS Case Is Actually Built
Here is what happens when you call. Here is the chronological walk from intake to resolution.
Week One: Intake and Exposure Mapping
The first conversation is free. We listen to your story — where you lived, how long, what you were diagnosed with, when. We begin mapping your exposure against known contamination zones. If you lived in the Tampa Bay Water service area or were on the USF Tampa campus during the contamination period, that is a starting point. If your diagnosis is one of the C8 probable-link conditions, the medical and exposure elements may align.
Week Two: The Preservation Letter
If the intake suggests a viable case, the first document we send is a litigation-hold / preservation letter. It goes to the utility, to the manufacturer defendants, and to any other evidence custodian. It orders them to freeze water-sampling data, internal corporate documents, AFFF usage records, and any other evidence relevant to your exposure. This letter is what stops the clock on evidence destruction.
Month One: Records Assembly and Blood Testing
We begin assembling your medical records — diagnosis, treatment history, pathology reports, imaging. We arrange blood serum PFAS testing through a specialized laboratory. We file FOIA requests for AFFF discharge records at nearby military installations and airports. We pull historical water-sampling data from the utility.
Months Two Through Six: Expert Retention and Causation Analysis
We retain a toxicologist to reconstruct your dose — how much PFAS you were exposed to, based on water-contamination data and your residence history. We retain an epidemiologist to address general causation — whether PFAS causes your specific disease. We retain a treating physician or oncologist to address specific causation — whether YOUR disease was caused by YOUR exposure. These experts are the spine of the case.
Months Six Through Twelve: Discovery and Depositions
If the case is filed, discovery begins. We serve document demands on the manufacturer defendants — targeting internal corporate knowledge of PFAS health risks predating public regulatory action. We depose the corporate representatives under oath. The documents that prior MDL discovery already surfaced — the internal memos, the testing results, the meeting minutes where company scientists discussed the dangers — become the foundation for the punitive-damages argument.
Resolution: Mediation or Trial
PFAS cases against solvent manufacturer defendants are viable for mediation given the settlement momentum in the broader litigation. Excess-exposure demands should be calibrated to each defendant’s specific contribution to the contamination plume. If mediation does not produce a fair result, the case proceeds to trial — where a jury of your neighbors decides what a lifetime of contaminated water and a cancer diagnosis is worth.
First Steps: What to Do Now
If you or a family member has been diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, or ulcerative colitis — and you lived in a service area with documented PFAS contamination — here are the steps that matter most.
1. Get Legal Evaluation Promptly
The statute-of-limitations clock may be running. In Florida, the general negligence statute of limitations runs four years, and the wrongful-death deadline runs two years — but in toxic tort cases, the discovery rule may mean the clock starts later than you think. The only way to know where you stand is to have an attorney evaluate your specific timeline. This evaluation is free. Waiting costs nothing in money — but it can cost everything in evidence.
2. Get Blood Serum PFAS Testing
Blood testing documents your specific PFAS exposure. It identifies which compounds are in your body and at what concentrations. This is biological evidence — and its precision degrades over time as exposure conditions change. Ask your attorney about testing laboratories that produce litigation-grade results.
3. Preserve Your Medical and Residence Records
Gather your medical records — diagnosis, pathology, treatment, imaging. Gather your residence history — every address where you lived during the contamination period, with dates. These records are the exposure timeline. They are yours. Keep them.
4. Do Not Sign Anything From the Water Utility or Any Insurance Representative
If someone offers you a check, a release, or a “settlement” connected to water contamination — do not sign it. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not answer questions about your health or your family’s history. Anything you say can and will be used to minimize your claim. Talk to a lawyer first.
5. Do Not Post About Your Case on Social Media
Assume you are being watched. Do not post about your diagnosis, your water, your case, or your activities. The defense will mine your social media for anything that contradicts your claim.
Why Attorney911: The People Who Will Handle Your Case
Ralph P. Manginello — Managing Partner
Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — which means he learned early that the truth is not what someone tells you, it is what the documents prove. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, and he handles the complex, document-intensive cases where corporate knowledge and corporate concealment are the whole fight. PFAS litigation is exactly that kind of case — it turns on internal memos, testing results, and meeting minutes that show what these companies knew and when they knew it. Ralph has built his career on finding those documents and making them count. He does not like losing. He does not expect to.
Lupe Peña — Associate Attorney
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like the reader of this page. He sat in the rooms where claim valuation software like Colossus was used to minimize payouts. He knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours, how the recorded-statement call is engineered, and how the IME doctor is selected. Now he sits on your side of the table. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. If your family prays in Spanish, your lawyer should be able to talk to you in Spanish.
What the First Call Feels Like
The first call is free. It costs nothing and it commits you to nothing. You will talk to a live person — not an answering service, not a chatbot — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We will listen to your story. We will tell you honestly whether we see a case or we do not. If we do, we will explain the next steps. If we do not, or if we are not the right fit for your situation, we will tell you that too — because the most important thing a lawyer can give you at 2 a.m. is the truth.
The Fee
We work on contingency. We don’t get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial, 40% if trial begins. You pay nothing out of pocket. You pay nothing for the consultation. You pay nothing for the investigation. You pay nothing unless there is a recovery.
If You Were Exposed, the Clock Is Already Running
The EPA’s rollback is a political event. Your legal rights are not political — they are personal. The manufacturers who put these chemicals into your water did so for profit. They knew, or should have known, what those chemicals do to the human body. The fact that the government is now easing some of the rules does not erase what already happened to your family.
If you lived in a documented PFAS contamination zone — in the Tampa Bay Water service area, on the USF Tampa campus, near a military base or airport where AFFF foam was used — and you or someone you love has been diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, or ulcerative colitis, call us. The call is free. The evaluation is free. The evidence is dying on a clock, and the statute of limitations is running on a clock, and the only thing that stops both clocks is a lawyer’s letter on file.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911 — that is 1-888-288-9911. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. Live staff, not a machine.
Hablamos Español. Su familia merece respuestas en su propio idioma.
Learn more about our toxic tort practice.
If you have lost a loved one to a PFAS-linked disease, our wrongful-death team can help.
Explore all of our practice areas.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — Attorney911 — Legal Emergency Lawyers™. In business since July 18, 2001. Houston, TX based; takes toxic-tort and environmental-exposure cases with local counsel where required.