Many cities are struggling to remove toxic chemicals known as “forever chemicals” from public water systems by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming regulatory deadlines because of the high cost of completing the work, experts said during a National League of Cities Congressional City Conference panel last week.
In 2024, the EPA finalized new Clean Water Act standards that set maximum caps on contaminant levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, allowed in drinking water.
The Biden administration created the rule to help reduce exposure to chemicals linked to health risks, including cancer, liver and heart impacts, and developmental damage to infants and children, the EPA stated at the time. The rule required public water systems to start monitoring PFAS levels by 2027 and implement solutions to meet those standards, if in violation, by 2029.
To help pay for the new requirements, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided over $50 billion in water infrastructure upgrades to improve drinking water, replace lead pipes and clean waterways. The IIJA’s key water infrastructure grant programs expire on Sept. 30, but Congress is developing reauthorization legislation.
Even with federal funding, many cities and towns are struggling to meet the requirement deadlines — and that’s posing water affordability challenges, said Carolyn Berndt, NLC’s legislative director for sustainability.
Many rural communities are “deadly afraid of PFAS because it really has the potential to bankrupt a community,” said Olga Morales-Pate, CEO of the Rural Community Assistance Partnership. “PFAS is really a big area of focus for us, to try to figure out, what are our options? It’s very expensive to treat water.”
High costs to meet regulations
Estimates show that meeting PFAS standards could cost utilities billions per year, said Dan Hartnett, chief policy officer for the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, a lobbying group for large publicly owned water utilities.
Last year, the Trump administration introduced a rule that would push back the compliance date for two PFAS chemicals to 2031. It later asked a federal court to remove its determination to enforce the standards for four other PFAS chemicals.
The agency is committed to enforcing compliance for the two PFAS chemicals but is working to provide “common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement in May.
The Trump administration “lessened the sting a little bit” by extending the compliance deadline two years, Hartnett said. “This would just give communities a little more time to comply with those standards and get those projects up and running.”
The National Resources Defense Council countered that by extending the deadline and removing chemicals from enforcement, the EPA was trying to “jettison rules intended to keep drinking water safe,” NRDC senior attorney Jared Thompson said in a September statement.
The AMWA, with the American Water Works Association, challenged the PFAS regulations in a lawsuit against the EPA in 2024. The lawsuit argued the agency didn’t follow required Safe Drinking Act processes or use the best science and data when finalizing the rule. The case is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies also has concerns surrounding some of the science the EPA used when drafting the water-quality criteria in the PFAS standards, Kristina Surfus, the managing director of government affairs at the NACWA, said during the panel.
Surfus said that several publicly owned storm and wastewater management agencies the lobby group represents will have compliance issues due to the strict contaminant standards.
Utilities are taking the initiative to figure out how to finance projects but are also facing public pressure and concerns about what they are doing to meet the PFAS standards, she said.
“That puts communities in a real bind,” Surfus said.
How one city is meeting the standards
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has focused on cleaning its drinking water supply to levels considered safe under the EPA regulations despite facing a number of challenges, said Ashley Vanorny, a Cedar Rapids City Council member. Investing resources to provide clean water that meets regulatory standards is challenging but important, she said.
Cedar Rapids’ water infrastructure was impacted by a devastating flood in 2008 and destructive hurricane-level winds in 2020, said Vanorny. Fire retardants used by the local municipal airport also contaminated nearby drinking water sources.
Yet Cedar Rapids’ drinking water has repeatedly been named best-tasting by the Iowa Section of the American Water Works Association, said Varnorny. State PFAS tests of 25 PFAS compounds set health advisories for only two, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).
The city’s water is generally considered safer than many other communities throughout the state, where water contamination has been linked to rising cancer rates. The EPA found at least a dozen cities in Iowa have community drinking water supplies with high levels of PFAS contamination.
Cedar Rapids has focused on cleaning its water supplies and maintaining its aging water infrastructure while being mindful not to raise taxes or take on unnecessary bonds, said Varnorny.
The city’s airport launched a nonprofit in 2019 that aims to reduce runoff and flood impacts in the state and restore local water quality through measures such as providing grants and test kits to groups and volunteers that conduct that work.
The city has also invested in water treatment and wastewater infrastructure improvement efforts and is conducting a study on the treatment of PFAS contaminants, said Vanorny. It has received millions in settlement funds through a class-action lawsuit against manufacturers responsible for contaminating drinking water and $348 million to improve water quality through a state revolving fund loan via the IIJA.
Varorny urged other cities to stay on top of the research to understand the extent of contamination issues, be transparent about how they are addressing the city’s water quality and include residents in the conversation.
“It’s our responsibility as municipal leaders to ensure that our residents can get clean, safe drinking water,” said Varnorny. “This has got to be one of the predominant focuses that we have.”
