By
Toxic chemicals that never break down are silently infiltrating America’s water — and the cost to clean them up is staggering. As the EPA cracks down on per- and polyfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFAS), local governments are racing against time and budget to protect their communities from an invisible threat that’s everywhere.
When mapping out areas where “forever chemicals” have polluted the landscape, Fairfield, Maine, “lights up like a Christmas tree” in some areas, according to Town Manager Michelle Flewelling.
Even special filtration systems installed in some homes may only work for a month or so before the media becomes saturated with dangerous pollutants.
By now, most government officials understand PFAS compounds — used in non-stick, waterproof, and stain-resistant products — pose dire risks to both human health and the environment. Their widespread use and persistence have turned a convenience into a growing public health crisis.
Among the most notorious PFAS compounds are PFOA, once a key ingredient in DuPont’s Teflon, and PFOS, formerly used in 3M’s Scotchgard. One common concern is that PFAS breaks down slowly, allowing concentrations to accumulate in people, animals, and the environment over time. So, removing it from the water supply as soon as possible is key.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, recent testing of public water systems has revealed PFAS contamination at 9,552 sites across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories — underscoring the widespread reach of these persistent chemicals.
When PFAS enters the body, it can trigger numerous health problems, such as kidney cancer, infertility, and birth defects, to name a few. In animals, PFAS can lead to stillborn offspring. What’s more, these pollutants can also poison food crops, turning fields into silent vectors of toxic exposure for anyone who eats from them.
Onur Apul, an environmental engineer at the University of Maine and the head of its initiative to study PFAS solutions, told The Atlantic that the United States has seen “nothing as overwhelming, and nothing as universal” as the PFAS crisis.
Onur said destroying PFAS requires massive energy because the fluorine-carbon bond found in PFAS is the single most stable bond in organic chemistry.
And where did that PFAS come from? In Maine, they come from paper mills that make items such as coated paper plates and McDonald’s signature yellow cheeseburger wrappers, with the sludge later spread on agricultural fields, according to Flewelling.
In Barnstable, Massachusetts, a historic town and city on Cape Cod, officials believe a PFAS pollution plume is the result of a large fire where firefighters used PFAS-filled fire-retardant foam.
In response to this issue, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its first-ever National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for these pollutants. The rule severely limits the amount of PFAS that can be tolerated in drinking water, placing a cost burden on government entities nationwide.
The EPA, in its final rule, is setting limits for five individual PFAS. The maximum contamination level allowed under the new EPA rule will be four parts per trillion. Local government entities have three years to meet the EPA standards. For many, the focus is on coordinating with state and federal governments to meet the EPA requirements. The most concerning issue is cost.
“Communities and states will need to determine whether PFAS is in their drinking water and take actions such as notifying consumers and reducing the levels of PFAS, as needed,” the EPA states.
Compliance with the EPA rule is estimated to cost approximately $1.5 billion annually. During the Biden-Harris Administration, through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, $9 billion was earmarked to help communities impacted by PFAS pollution in drinking water.
Additionally, “Another $12 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding is available to communities to make general drinking water improvements, including addressing PFAS chemicals,” the EPA states. “Estimated costs include water system monitoring, communicating with customers, and – if necessary – installing treatment technologies.”
“There is no playbook,” said Flewelling. “This is too new for them to know how to proceed.” Her town’s issues are being managed through the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, which has placed filtration systems in individual homes, provided residents with bottled water, tested blood samples from residents, and shut down wells in some regions of the state.
“The state has taken it on as their issue because they were the licensing authority” for the sludge spreading, which has since stopped, Flewelling said. She added that the state has tested 380 residences in Fairfield, with 149 showing PFAS levels above 20 parts per trillion. So far, 143 filtration systems have been installed, with five more scheduled. “The state has been really good about getting those installed,” she said.
The activated carbon filtration systems for individual homes cost about $5,000 and last about a year, except in areas with heavy concentrations of PFAS, where they may last a month or so, Flewelling said.
All 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico benefit from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) through federal capitalization grants that support the administration of their own state-specific programs.
In addition, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories — including the Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam — receive direct grant funding under the DWSRF, ensuring nationwide access to critical water infrastructure support.
Many states, such as California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, are turning to low-interest revolving loans to cover treatment costs.
Some places are luckier than others. Tampa, Florida’s water department has determined that the amount of PFAS, or compounds used in non-stick pans, fire-retardant foam, and hundreds of other products, is present only in small amounts. Still, the city is spending millions to protect its population from these chemicals, which can enter the body and remain there for a lifetime.
In Tampa, the plan is starting with a treatment plant that removes organics from the drinking water supply, said Planning Manager Sarah Burns.
“The city gets its water from the Hillsborough River and is hoping to remove things like decaying vegetation through a Dutch technology called Suspended Ion Exchange, or SIX.” Tampa is spending $200 million on the plant, which will be the largest of its kind in the world. The long-term project should be completed by 2032.
“As it turns out, organics also interfere with the removal of PFAS through media filters,” she said. “We are going to replace our (carbon filtration) media more often, but even with that, removing organics ahead of the filtration makes it easier.”
“SIX is removing 30% of the PFAS in the water. It may be possible to get out organics and PFAS at the same time,” she said.
Rate increases approved by the Tampa City Council allowed new monthly base charges to begin in 2020, consisting of a $2 base charge for both water and wastewater service. Base charges will increase from 2021 to 2034 at a rate of $2 per month per equivalent residential unit, or ERU.
The city council also approved consumption charge increases of 3% for 2020 and 2021, 11% for 2022-2025, 6% for 2026, and 1% thereafter through 2040. There will be a 3% annual increase in wastewater from 2020 to 2031, followed by a 4% increase through 2040.
Additional filtration media costs have not yet been added, Burns said.
Littleton, Massachusetts, took out a loan from the state to fund a $20 million filtration system.
“We got a loan from the state’s revolving fund program at zero percent interest, and they gave us 20% principal, or $4 million, so the loan ended up being $16 million,” said Corey Godfrey, superintendent for Littleton’s Electric, Light, and Water Departments. “It has to be repaid by the ratepayers, and it is a pretty significant rate.”
Godfrey went on to say that, using a carbon filtration system, PFAS detected at 27 ppt going into the plant are coming out undetected.
The cost of EPA compliance is extreme, and questions about who should be footing the bill are surfacing quickly. The National League of Cities has been tracking the EPA’s actions regarding PFAS for several years and relaying information to its membership.
“We can talk about the cost and implications at the local level, but basically local governments need more direct funding from EPA, from Congress, and the administration to help with testing, monitoring, plant upgrades, and technology improvements,” said Carolyn Berndt, the Legislative Director for Sustainability on the Federal Advocacy team at the National League of Cities.
“There is some money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, but it is not going to be nearly enough,” she said. “Second, the other thing we keep hearing from local leaders is why are we continuing to put PFAS into the environment and having local governments pay to treat it and remove it?”
Local governments are pushing to remove PFAS from use entirely, so this cleanup effort doesn’t become a cycle where local governments are continually on the hook for the treatment costs, she said.
“Our role as a national organization is to help educate local leaders that litigation is something that exists and is something they need to discuss with their attorneys to see if that is right for their community,” Berndt said. “We have put out some information that basically says the litigation opportunities do present themselves.” 3M has already settled a class action suit for $10 million, but that is one drop in the proverbial bucket.
