“We’ve been looking to states as leaders in setting standards and doing the basic science,” said Zach Schafer, director of policy and special projects for EPA’s Office of Water Quality. “State agencies will play a central role. [in implementing the national rule]. “
Schafer said the agency estimates that 6 to 10 percent of the nation’s water systems will need to take steps to reduce PFAS contamination, at an average cost of $1.5 billion per year over 80 years.
Public health advocates say the EPA rule is an important step toward ensuring all Americans have access to safe water, and they say the states’ actions show such efforts can be effective.
But some state regulators and water suppliers say the strict standards and deadlines imposed by the federal government will be difficult for many water companies to meet, even in states that already have their own regulations. The Biden administration has committed billions of dollars to cleaning up water supplies, but experts say the costs will far exceed the funds available.
“This will have a major impact on water rates and water affordability across the country,” said Chris Moody, regulatory technology manager for the American Water Works Association, which represents more than 4,000 utilities.
Ann estimateA study commissioned by the association estimated the national cost of cleaning up polluted water at about $4 billion a year, and the report said some households could see their bills increase by thousands of dollars to cover the costs.
“There are big concerns”
New Jersey became the first state to enact standards for PFAS in drinking water in 2018. The state’s regulations gave it a head start, but officials say tougher standards still face challenges in meeting them.
“When you take the EPA numbers, the number of noncompliant systems increases dramatically,” said Sean LaTourette, the state’s environmental protection commissioner. “There are big concerns about cost and enforcement.”
LaTourette said state leaders are working to analyze which water systems may not meet the federal standards when they take effect, and he is urging lawmakers to provide more funding for communities that can’t afford the improvements.
Federal government: 12 Iowa water suppliers must remediate ‘permanent chemical’ contamination
in State of WashingtonWater utilities began testing for PFAS in 2021 under state standards that regulators passed in 2021. Officials say about 2% of water systems tested so far don’t meet the standards, but that number jumps to 10% when the stricter federal regulations are factored in. State leaders have said they can waive the data they’ve been collecting to meet EPA testing requirements from the current standards.
Mike Means, capacity building and policy manager for the Washington State Department of Health, said the department may ask state lawmakers for “significant” staffing increases to implement the new rules.
Michigan has had drinking water standards for PFAS since 2020. Hendershot said state officials are ready to incorporate the EPA’s standards, but the new, tougher standards could quadruple the number of water systems that don’t meet them.
Sara Doll, national director of Safer States, a coalition of environmental health groups that focuses on toxic chemicals, said state efforts were key to getting the federal regulation in place.
“They’ve created an urgency for the federal government to put these standards in place,” she said. “States that already have regulatory standards are definitely in an advantageous position.”
“It’s very expensive.”
Many states have not enacted their own standards, but some have implemented testing and other measures to address residents’ exposure.
This will require much more investment at the state level.
– Alan Roberson, Executive Director, Association of State Drinking Water Officials
Missouri has been testing water systems for PFAS for more than a decade, creating maps to alert residents to potential contamination. Eric Medlock, an environmental specialist with the state’s Department of Natural Resources, said 11 of the 400 systems tested may have problems complying with EPA rules. The department plans to bring in chemists and lab equipment to do more testing in-house.
Medlock expressed concern that federal restrictions are too strict and are approaching the detectable threshold.
“When you get down to very low detection levels, right at the edge of regulatory limits, that’s where you start to have problems,” he said. “The EPA’s proposal needs to be implemented and regulated. This is going to be a problem.”
Medlock and his colleagues noted that states will face long-term problems storing the waste, because the waste filtered from the water itself poses a risk of PFAS contamination.
The infrastructure bill passed by Congress in 2021 includes $5 billion over five years to help communities deal with PFAS and other emerging contaminants.
Further funding for the cleanup could come from state lawsuits against chemical manufacturers. Thirty attorneys general have filed suit Lawsuit filed Minnesota settled lawsuits against polluters for $850 million, but state leaders say such settlements are not a predictable source of funding.
In addition to the upfront costs of installing treatment systems, utilities also face ongoing costs, such as replacing filters and disposing of waste, that are unlikely to qualify for federal grants or loans. Meanwhile, some water system leaders say federal compliance deadlines may not be enough.
“Large capital projects take time to design and build,” said Erica Brown, chief strategy and sustainability officer at the Association of Metropolitan Water Officials, a policy group that advocates for public water utilities. “It’s not something you can just say, ‘We have to do this by next year,’ and then just go ahead and do it.”
Some officials also worry that drinking water restrictions could lead to increased state regulation of wastewater treatment plants and other entities whose wastewater could affect drinking water sources.
“That’s going to be a problem, because [treatment] “It’s very expensive,” said Sharon Green, legislative and regulatory programs manager for the Los Angeles County Department of Sanitation, which operates 11 wastewater treatment plants.
Both state regulators and regulated utilities say state leaders need to take a broader approach to the PFAS problem than just treating water coming out of taps: Officials need to stop contamination at the source, regulate industrial activity and restrict products that contain the chemicals.
“Keeping it away from the river in the first place… [the utility] “There’s no need to spend millions of dollars on treatment,” said Jean Jehan, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, a South-focused advocacy group.
Southern states have not adopted drinking water standards for PFAS, but South Carolina, which requires polluters to disclose PFAS discharges, is a good model for cutting off pollution at the source, Zuan said.
As states face the costs of fixing their PFAS problems, some advocates don’t want them to forget the public health costs of inaction.
“Ultimately, people will be ingesting less of these chemicals and getting sick less often,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president of government relations at the Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy nonprofit.
This story begins: Statelineis part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public benefit organization. Stateline maintains editorial independence. If you have questions, please contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger at 1-800-448-4490. [email protected]Follow Stateline Facebook and twitter.
