This spring, the Biden Administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restricted six toxic PFAS chemicals found in drinking water, the first time the agency has regulated these ubiquitous “forever chemicals” in water.
As many as 105 million people in the U.S. get their drinking water from water systems contaminated by PFAS at a level exceeding the new standards. These chemicals are infamous for their extreme persistence in the environment, widespread pollution, and harmful health effects that have been linked to human exposure: kidney and testicular cancer, high cholesterol, changes in hormone levels, and harmful effects on the liver, kidneys, and immune, nervous, and reproductive systems. Almost no level of exposure is safe for public health.
Yet, many water utilities have been fighting against strong PFAS standards for years, objecting to the costs of taking PFAS out of their water and downplaying the health benefits. Fortunately, EPA didn’t buckle against the utilities’ opposition. Nor did it buckle against opposition from chemical manufacturers and other industries that face liability for cleaning up PFAS pollution at the source.
Instead, EPA amassed voluminous scientific evidence in support of the new standards, carefully analyzed the costs and benefits of these protections, and took a huge step forward to protect public health.
But water utilities—despite their responsibility to provide safe water to the communities they serve—may very well challenge the EPA’s standards in court.
The utilities’ biggest scare tactic is to present a choice between getting PFAS out of our water and keeping water bills affordable. As we and many of our colleagues that have spent years fighting for affordable drinking water have pointed out, this is a false choice, for many reasons:
- Water utilities’ cost estimates are substantially overblown. In NRDC’s comments on the proposed rule, we included an independent engineering firm’s comprehensive analysis that sharply critiqued the methodologies behind the American Water Works Association’s cost projections (see analysis here, Exhibit C). In the final rule, EPA largely agreed, specifically rebutting over a dozen flawed assumptions in AWWA’s costs estimates. (See the final rule, pages 32639-48.) After considering all comments on the proposed rule, EPA’s final estimate of PFAS treatment costs did make several adjustments that increased the projected costs of the rule, but EPA’s revised estimated cost was well under half of AWWA’s estimate.
- Substantial federal funding is available to support utilities’ costs. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provides $9 billion for water systems to address emerging contaminants such as PFAS. That includes $5 billion in grants specifically for small, underserved, and disadvantaged communities and $4 billion in forgivable loans and grants to disadvantaged communities. Another $11.7 billion is for drinking water infrastructure needs generally, half of which is for forgivable loans and grants to disadvantaged communities. That’s all on top of billions in federal and state water infrastructure funds available annually through the “base” State Revolving Fund programs. These funding sources won’t offset all of the costs of PFAS treatment, but they will take a substantial share of the load off of water utilities and their customers. NRDC and our partners are aligned with the water utility sector in pushing for ongoing, increased levels of federal and state funding.
- PFAS manufacturers and polluters must be held accountable for costs of treatment and/or alternative water supplies. Water utilities—and states on behalf of water utilities—have filed dozens of lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers and polluters to recover costs of drinking water treatment and/or securing alternative water supplies. Over $10 billion of dollars have already been agreed to in chemical company settlements with water utilities, with many lawsuits still pending and likely more to come. EPA’s recent designation of two types of PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) will help hold more polluters financially accountable. And EPA should use additional legal authorities under CERCLA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to further support that goal.
- When new treatment technologies are installed, the costs can be spread over decades. It’s important to recall that—just like buying a new house—building new treatment capacity doesn’t need to be paid for upfront, in full. As with other capital investments, utilities can spread the costs over time through bond financing, often with the ability to take advantage of subsidized interest rates from state and federal programs.
-
Utilities must rethink their regressive approach to water rates, using strategies that increase revenue without burdening low-income residents. Local water rates are typically regressive. That is, people with the lowest incomes pay the greatest share of their income to meet their essential water needs, and rate increases hit them the hardest. But it doesn’t have to be that way There are many options available to more equitably distribute the cost of maintaining and improving community water systems. The tools in the toolkit include:
–> capping bills for low-income residents at an affordable percentage of income, as some cities like Philadelphia have already done;
–> offering other forms of bill discounts specifically to low-income customers;
–> adopting low “lifeline rates” (for all customers) for a basic level of usage that meets essential indoor water needs; and
–> helping low-income customers repair plumbing leaks and replace old, water-guzzling toilets and fixtures.
- For small systems, consolidation or restructuring can sometimes help achieve compliance with standards and improve affordability. This is more likely to be relevant for systems with significant treatment needs and limited technical and financial capacity. But robust community engagement and buy-in is essential when considering this approach. In some cases consolidation or other restructuring can help address concerns with costs and the availability of improved water treatment, but they raise many complex concerns around governance, oversight, transparency, public engagement in decision-making, and other issues, and are not the right solution in every case.
We should all be able to agree that everyone deserves access to safe water—no matter their zip code, their income, or the relative wealth or poverty of their community. EPA’s drinking water standards for PFAS set a strong benchmark for protecting public health. Let’s get to work meeting those standards, using all the tools available to make our water safe and affordable.
