PFAS Funding Is Flowing — But Does The Water Sector Have Enough People To Deliver It?
By Lukas Vanterpool
PFAS compliance in the U.S. is now limited more by workforce capacity than by funding or technology. The EPA's 2024 drinking water standards and billions in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding have created a fast-moving demand curve for specialist talent, including treatment engineers, applications engineers, commissioning specialists, compliance professionals, and PFAS-experienced project managers.
Utilities, consultancies, and OEMs that I work with are now competing for the same small pool of qualified people, and traditional hiring methods such as job boards and keyword-matched resumes are not built to find them. This is largely because the strongest candidates are not actively job hunting.
Why PFAS Has Become A Workforce Problem, Not Just A Technology Problem
For several years, the PFAS conversation has centered on treatment options, testing, and funding. Those factors still matter, but they are no longer the primary constraint. Most utilities already understand the treatment routes available to them; the real challenge now is moving from technical possibility to operational performance, and that depends entirely on people.
A treatment system can be fully designed, funded, and cleared through procurement, and still stall without the right professionals to carry it through pilot testing, installation, commissioning, and long-term compliance reporting. PFAS project timelines are increasingly determined by workforce availability, not regulation, capital, or procurement alone.
This is consistent with what I'm seeing on the ground in specialist recruitment. Utilities, consultancies, and OEMs are not short on mandate or money. They're short on the specific people needed to move a project from pilot testing through commissioning, and those people are being pulled in multiple directions at once by every organization competing for the same small pool.
What Triggered The Current Hiring Surge
In April 2024, the EPA finalized the first national drinking water regulation for PFAS, setting enforceable limits including PFOA and PFOS. The regulatory picture has shifted since then, though the underlying workforce pressure has not. In May 2026, the EPA proposed rescinding standards for four other PFAS compounds while keeping the PFOA and PFOS limits in place, and letting qualifying systems request two additional years, moving compliance from 2029 to 2031.
That extension reflects how difficult implementation is, not reduced urgency. Several states, including New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York, had already set their own enforceable PFAS limits ahead of the federal rule. For utilities in those states, the compliance obligation, and the workforce needed to meet it, does not go away.
The scale is significant. EPA estimates indicate that 6–10% of the roughly 66,000 covered public drinking water systems in the U.S. may need to take action to reduce PFAS levels. That volume of work requires engineers, pilot data specialists, project managers, compliance professionals, and commissioning teams all at once.
Regulatory pressure has outpaced the workforce pipeline's ability to respond, and in my conversations with clients across the sector, that gap is exactly what's driving how competitive this hiring has become.
The Broader Workforce Squeeze Behind The Bottleneck
The PFAS-specific talent shortage is not happening in isolation. AWWA's 2026 benchmarking data shows 21% of water utility employees are eligible to retire within five years, against a 9% vacancy rate.
The EPA's workforce initiative estimates 30–50% of water sector workers will be eligible for retirement within five to ten years, and the National League of Cities projects roughly 10,000 operator openings annually through 2034.
Layer PFAS-specific requirements on top of a workforce already retiring faster than it's replaced, and the bottleneck becomes structural rather than temporary.
Why Funding Alone Does Not Solve Implementation
A misconception I run into constantly is that capital funding resolves the PFAS challenge on its own. Funding does not design treatment systems, interpret breakthrough curves, or manage compliance reporting. People do. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocated 9 billion dollars specifically for PFAS and other emerging contaminants, with a further 12 billion for broader drinking water improvements. That investment creates real opportunity, but it also concentrates pressure on the same limited talent pool.
This is where specialist water and wastewater recruitment becomes a strategic opportunity rather than an administrative task, and it's a pattern I see repeat across the sector. A utility can secure funding and still struggle to execute without the right expertise. A consultancy can win the work and find its delivery team stretched thin. The constraint is no longer whether solutions exist. It's whether enough people exist who can deliver them at scale.
The 5 Roles Creating The Biggest Bottlenecks
In my experience running searches across this sector, these roles are the hardest to fill because they sit at the intersection of technical depth, regulatory knowledge, and hands-on delivery experience.
PFAS Treatment Engineers. These engineers move organizations from contamination data to treatment strategy, a different skill set from general water treatment engineering. A candidate with only conventional experience may be capable, but that doesn't automatically translate into readiness to lead PFAS-specific planning. This is where I see many hiring processes become misaligned: the title looks familiar, but the capability requirement is far more specific.
Applications Engineers. These professionals bridge the gap between a treatment technology and a practical, defensible application. The combination of technical confidence, commercial awareness, and project understanding this requires is genuinely rare, and it's one of the hardest briefs I get asked to fill. Strong applications engineers are almost never on the open market; they're embedded in active pipelines.
Commissioning and Start-Up Specialists. Many organizations assume the hardest part ends once a system is installed. What I've found working with clients is that commissioning capability often determines whether a project reaches compliance-ready performance or struggles in the field.
Environmental Compliance Professionals. PFAS regulation has significantly increased the burden on compliance teams. This work requires people who can interpret technical data, communicate with regulators, and identify risks before they become failures.
Project Managers with PFAS Delivery Experience. These projects sit at the intersection of regulation, funding, engineering, procurement, and operations. The strongest project managers understand that delivery means coordinating technical decisions that carry direct compliance consequences.
Why Standard Recruitment Methods Are Falling Short
Most organizations aren't doing nothing. Many are posting roles, contacting agencies, and reviewing applicants. What I see time and again is that these methods only reach the visible portion of the market.
The strongest PFAS candidates are already employed, often on critical projects, and aware their skills are in demand. In my experience, a generic outreach message rarely lands if it doesn't demonstrate real understanding of their background.
Keyword matching can identify resumes that mention PFAS, granular activated carbon (GAC), or ion exchange (IX), but it can't assess depth of experience, or distinguish pilot-testing support from full-scale implementation. Without sharper qualification, hiring managers end up with shortlists that look plausible on paper but don't solve the real problem.
What PFAS Candidates Actually Value in a Move
Compensation matters in a tight market, but from what I'm seeing in candidate conversations, it's rarely the deciding factor. Specialists are typically motivated by the technical substance of the work: whether the project is meaningful, whether the organization is genuinely committed to delivery, and whether they'll have the resources and authority to do the job properly.
Many job descriptions fail to communicate this. I tell hiring managers the same thing every time: strong candidates don't need another list of responsibilities. They need clarity on the technical challenge, the leadership environment, and the reason the role exists.
How Utilities And Engineering Firms Can Reduce The Talent Bottleneck
Based on what's worked for the clients I've supported through this, a more effective approach connects workforce planning directly to project delivery from the start.
Map talent needs before delivery begins. Identify which roles are needed at each stage and be honest about what capability already exists internally.
Define PFAS experience precisely. A candidate who supported sampling is not equivalent to one who designed treatment systems. Precise briefs produce better shortlists.
Engage passive candidates with a credible, specific story. The best candidates aren't responding to job ads.
Move quickly once the right candidate is identified. Strong candidates don't stay available for long.
Build retention into the strategy from day one. Retention depends on meaningful work and credible leadership, not just salary.
Recruitment in this space is not a volume game. It is a precision exercise. In my experience, the organizations that succeed are the ones that understand exactly what capability they need, where it sits in the market, and how to engage it before competitors do. The next phase of PFAS delivery in the U.S. will be determined by which ones had the right people in place at the right time.
Lukas Vanterpool is co-founder of The Sterling Choice, a specialist recruitment and workforce partner that supports organizations across the water, wastewater, utilities, food & beverage, and CPG sectors across the UK, U.S., and UAE. He works with business leaders to solve complex hiring challenges, strengthen workforce strategies, and build teams capable of thriving in fast-changing industries.