At Water Treatment 411 we see small wastewater treatment plants across the U.S. all staring down the same problem: aging infrastructure with zero redundancy. Many operate with just one aeration basin and one clarifier (often nearing or past their design life) and limited space for expansion. When the liner starts leaking or grit buildup impacts performance, operators face an impossible choice: risk noncompliance or shut down the plant. A recent project on the Big Island of Hawaii shows there’s a smarter path forward. 

The Challenge: Maintain Treatment While Replacing a Failing Lagoon Liner 

At a 300,000 GPD extended aeration activated sludge facility, the aging lagoon liner had begun deteriorating, with visible wear along the outer edge and accumulating grit reducing capacity. The utility manager needed to take the lagoon offline for cleaning and relining, but the site had no secondary aeration basin or spare clarifier to fall back on. No redundancy, no safety net. 

Expanding the footprint wasn’t an option either. This is typical of older, land-constrained sites. So the question became: How do you temporarily remove a critical treatment process without breaking compliance? 

The Fix: Turn the Clarifier Into an Aeration Basin 

Enter WSI International, which engineered a clever workaround: Convert the existing secondary clarifier into a temporary aeration basin and drop in a compact DAF unit to handle clarification. The project avoided major construction and used just a 38’ x 14’ flat space next to the control building. 

The DAF system was designed to manage MLSS from the activated sludge process and included pumps to send effluent uphill to the chlorine contact tank and handle RAS/WAS flows. Once the DAF came online, the clarifier was taken down and retrofitted for biological treatment duty. 

The converted clarifier had structural limitations (a sloped floor, existing rake systems, and limited internal access) making traditional blower-based aeration impractical. 

The Innovation: External Jet Aeration With Landia AirJet 

To meet oxygen demand and ensure proper mixing in the repurposed clarifier, WSI went with Landia’s AirJet system. The venturi-style jet aerator pulls atmospheric air into the flow and reintroduces it into the tank, delivering both aeration and mixing energy. Crucially, the AirJet’s nozzles are installed from the outside, with no need to gut or retrofit the internal structure. 

This solved multiple problems at once: 

• It avoided interference with existing rake assemblies. 

• It allowed fast deployment without costly custom fittings. 

• It enabled full biological treatment performance in a nontraditional tank. 

Why It Matters: Realistic Solutions for Aging Plants 

Many utilities, especially in rural areas, are dealing with similar constraints of older facilities with limited budgets and no room for expansion. This project offers a useful case study for how to temporarily shift treatment functions and execute maintenance without breaching permits or causing environmental risk. 

For operators and engineers, the core lesson here is that strategic repurposing can solve major constraints. You can add redundancy without pouring concrete or overhauling your plant. A clarifier can become an aeration basin. A compact DAF system can hold the line on solids separation. External jet aeration can eliminate the need for invasive installations. 

Keep Your Eyes Open for Scalable Solutions 

This isn’t just a one-off success. With the EPA’s increasing scrutiny on aging infrastructure and resilience, the ability to adapt and retrofit with minimal footprint will only become more important. 

Whether you’re working on an island or a landlocked township, this kind of creative, space-conscious, and technically robust thinking should be in every operator’s toolkit. 

SOURCES: H2O Global News 

PFAS regulation is changing fast and varies widely by state. At Water Treatment 411, we’re seeing utilities and industrial operators grapple with a growing maze of federal proposals, state mandates, and liability concerns. The EPA will continue regulating PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and may revoke MCLs for four others. But many states will enforce their own, often stricter limits regardless. This creates a patchwork risk environment for public utilities, manufacturers, and even buyers/investors. With litigation rising, CERCLA status still in play, and effluent limits on the horizon, it makes sense to start assessing PFAS exposure sooner rather than later. Here’s where to start. 

Know Your PFAS Risk Profile 

Not all PFAS compounds are treated equally. When you assess risk, distinguish among chain length, functional groups, and whether compounds are regulated per state or federal standards. Your liability profile is tied to what types your organization handles, so you need clarity. A facility-wide PFAS risk audit — mapping sources, pathways, and receptor points — helps you target high-impact areas for sampling, prioritize remediation zones, and determine where substitution of raw materials or process changes will deliver the greatest compliance and cost benefits. 

Build the Right Team 

You can’t outsource PFAS risk management completely. Internal buy-in is essential. Include operations leads, EHS managers, and legal counsel from the start, ensuring your strategy reflects on-the-ground realities, regulatory obligations, and corporate decision-making. It also improves your standing with investors, insurers, and insurers reviewing environmental due diligence. 

Sample Smarter 

A study with Pace Analytical shows that certain sampling materials — PTFE, HDPE, LDPE tubing, gloves, labels — can shed trace PFAS. All detections came from 24-hour leaching tests, but real sampling is shorter, so levels may be conservative. Still, use equipment blanks every time. Different brands and even production batches vary. If you suspect contamination, compare the PFAS profile found to known leachable compounds in specific materials to support forensic assessments and data integrity. 

PFAS Remediation Is Changing 

Traditional pump-and-treat is expensive, slow, and resource-heavy. Innovations like TRC’s in situ system (ART-PFAS), ion exchange resins tailored for short-chain PFAS, and foam fractionation systems designed for high-throughput municipal treatment offer greener, more efficient alternatives. Deployed as a retrofit to AS/SVE systems, ART-PFAS, for example, delivered 50–100% reductions in wells and up to 40% in nearby monitoring points in just months. It drove PFOA/PFOS well below 4 ng/L and slashed soil PFAS by 50–65%, all with minimal residual liquid and concentrated PFAS foam. In scaleup terms, it treated hundreds of thousands of gallons with much less waste than pump-and-treat. As regulatory pressure mounts and disposal costs rise, adopting advanced technologies is rapidly becoming the only practical path forward for sustainable PFAS control. 

Your PFAS Management Plan Essentials 

Your risk profile feeds directly into a practical management plan. That plan should include: 

• A mapped conceptual site model showing where PFAS risks emerge, such as raw materials, waste streams, and discharge points. 

• Mitigation strategies: substitution (PFAS-free raw materials), redesigned workflow to prevent legacy carryover, treatment upgrades to meet evolving limits. 

• Sampling programs for environmental media, industrial processes, raw inputs, and outgoing waste. 

• Trigger thresholds and contingency protocols, what to do when results or regulation thresholds change. 

An advance plan positions you to respond quickly to regulatory or transactional demands without scrambling for data or approvals. 

Your Next Moves 

PFAS is a financial, legal, and operational liability, and, for utilities, potential state limits may force major capital upgrades. Chemical and manufacturing firms face potential CERCLA, discharge, or litigation liabilities. Investors, lenders, and insurers are watching PFAS due diligence. A clearly defined profile and management strategy protects the business across the board. 

PFAS will be a defining challenge across water treatment operations. But with structured assessment, smart sampling, better remediation, and cross-functional collaboration, you can own your risk and stay ahead as the regulations evolve.  

SOURCES: Smart Water Magazine, Pace, TRC, EPA 

Disclaimer:
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, or compliance advice. PFAS-related risks, regulations, and liabilities vary widely across jurisdictions and are subject to ongoing changes at both state and federal levels. Readers should consult with qualified legal, environmental, and compliance professionals to evaluate how current and emerging PFAS requirements may impact their specific operations, facilities, or investments. Always refer to applicable federal, state, and local regulations and guidance when developing risk assessments or response plans.

Imagine turning on your tap and not trusting the water that flows out. For millions of Americans, this is a daily reality. According to new research out of the University of Oregon, more than 30 million Americans live in counties where drinking water systems violate safety regulations. Another 2 million don’t even have access to running water or indoor plumbing. And while these issues affect a broad spectrum of Americans, research consistently highlights that communities with higher proportions of racial minorities and lower incomes were more likely to have unregulated chemicals in their drinking water and were more frequently located near pollution sources. 

These bleak figures reflect real operational gaps that water professionals need to address, both technically and strategically, for vulnerable communities all over the U.S. This week, Water Treatment 411 dives into the water risk map and what it means for water professionals. 

The Water Injustice Score 

Using EPA data, CDC indicators, and public perception surveys, researchers created the first county-level water injustice index in the U.S. This index factors in both objective metrics, such as Safe Drinking Water Act violations, and subjective concerns, like resident perceptions of water quality, reliability, and access. 

Counties in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Oklahoma top the list, with violations ranging from contaminant exceedances to failure to implement basic treatment protocols. In some cases, one underperforming system skewed an entire county’s profile. Wyoming County, WV, stands out with the highest number of violations from a single water system. 

For operators and compliance managers, this research should prompt a closer look at your region’s systemic vulnerability, not just your own facility’s compliance record. The broader context matters when public trust and regulatory scrutiny are on the line. 

Privatization Isn’t the Fix-All 

One of the more nuanced findings in this study: Counties with higher levels of privatized water systems weren’t necessarily better off. While private ownership is often touted as a path to efficiency and innovation, the data suggests outcomes are highly context-dependent. In counties with high privatization but weak oversight or poor community engagement, perceptions of water insecurity were actually higher. 

For utilities considering transitions in ownership or management, this is important. Success doesn’t lie in the structure alone but in governance, transparency, and public trust. Engineering excellence won’t substitute for community credibility. 

Why This Study Matters 

For years, regulatory violations have been viewed primarily through the lens of technical compliance. This study reframes the issue, placing equal weight on social vulnerability and public perception. Water treatment professionals now face a dual mandate to deliver technically compliant water and actively engage communities with transparency and trust-building. 

Monitoring and reporting alone won’t cut it in high-risk counties. If your system serves low-income or racially marginalized populations, or if your service area overlaps with historic environmental justice issues, be prepared for increased federal and public attention. 

What You Can Do Now 

Understanding where water injustice is concentrated is only the first step. The next move is translating that knowledge into action. Whether you’re managing operations, setting policy, or overseeing compliance, these strategies can help align your utility’s work with the broader push for equity, trust, and long-term resilience. Here’s where to start: 

• Audit beyond compliance. Don’t just check if your system meets EPA standards. Evaluate how service delivery intersects with local socioeconomic vulnerability. Are you adequately serving communities that historically fall through the cracks? 

• Leverage local data to improve. Use geospatial tools and public feedback, like the datasets highlighted in this study, to inform capital improvements, rate structure revisions, and service expansions. 

• Prioritize communication and transparency to build resilience. Publish test results regularly, explain technical decisions in plain language, and create feedback loops with the communities you serve. 

• Push for policy alignment. Advocate for policies that marry funding with social impact, particularly in infrastructure grants. Infrastructure without equity is a short-term fix. 

• Engage with community stakeholders early. Trust starts before problems emerge. Host open forums, conduct targeted outreach, and build partnerships with local organizations to stay in sync with community concerns and needs. 

• Benchmark against similar systems. Compare performance with peer systems facing similar demographics or infrastructure challenges. Learning from better-performing systems can reveal scalable strategies worth adopting. 

• Invest in operator training focused on equity. Expand professional development to include environmental justice and risk communication. Field staff often become the face of the utility, so make sure they’re equipped to navigate these sensitive dynamics. 

• Prepare for increased EJ-driven funding and oversight. Align planning efforts with Justice40 and other federal initiatives emphasizing equity. Track and document your system’s impact on vulnerable populations to position yourself for competitive funding. 

• Establish an internal water equity audit process. Review your own policies on shutoffs, emergency alerts, billing, and more for any unintended impacts on disadvantaged communities. Use this as a foundation for continuous improvement. 

Water injustice stems from where system failures occur and who they impact most, often hitting the most vulnerable communities with the harshest consequences. The new water injustice score is a valuable tool for identifying those hot spots. For water treatment professionals, let it also serve as a reminder: Meeting regulations is only the starting point. The real objective is delivering water that all communities can rely on. 

SOURCES: University of Oregon, Environmental Health Perspectives 

Federal dollars are flowing again, and if you’re in water treatment, now’s the time to pay attention. From wastewater upgrades to creek restorations and new groundwater facilities, projects are stacking up nationwide despite a brief funding freeze under the new administration. The Environmental Protection Agency’s $6.2 billion FY2025 allocation is still driving momentum, and multiple cities are pushing forward with construction timelines and bid solicitations for 2025 and 2026. The scope of work includes aging infrastructure replacements, regulatory compliance improvements, stormwater upgrades and ecological restorations, representing rich opportunities for vendors, engineers, operators and service providers in the industry alike. 

Focus on Wastewater 

Le Mars, Iowa, is committing $155 million to expand its wastewater treatment plant. The project includes a new lift station, anaerobic pretreatment for high-strength flows, and a biosolids lagoon. This isn’t just a rehab job. The expansion is designed to accommodate increasing residential and industrial volume while ensuring state environmental compliance. 

In Michigan, Traverse City is planning a $41 million overhaul of a wastewater facility originally built in 1932. New primary clarifiers, effluent screw pumps and a UV disinfection system will bring the aging plant into the 21st century. Notably, the disinfection system will be elevated to withstand high water conditions, an example of climate resilience being baked into infrastructure planning. 

Both projects share a theme: aging infrastructure that’s past its prime is being phased out in favor of modern systems with higher efficiency, capacity, and resilience. For plant operators and engineers, this means big shifts in technology integration, operational training and maintenance protocols. 

Targeting Contaminants at the Source 

Norman, Oklahoma, is designing a groundwater treatment facility that zeroes in on emerging contaminants such as arsenic, chromium, and lithium. The 28-acre site will host centralized process operations, chemical dosing systems, stormwater detention, and even rain gardens. 

What stands out here is the facility’s focus on both regulatory compliance and community health. We’re seeing a growing interest in removing traditional pollutants along with compounds that are increasingly drawing attention from environmental watchdogs. This kind of project signals a pivot toward treatment processes designed for a broader spectrum of contaminants, many of which are likely to become regulatory priorities over the next decade. 

Nature-Based Solutions Are Gaining Ground 

The $75 million Westside Creeks restoration in San Antonio is a multi-purpose project restoring habitat, improving stormwater function, and reintroducing native vegetation across the Martinez Creek Watershed. By pulling out concrete linings and returning streams to a naturalized state, planners aim to boost water quality and biodiversity. 

This approach reflects a wider trend: using green infrastructure to enhance gray systems. If your operations intersect with stormwater management, this is your cue to start thinking beyond pipes and pumps. Nature-based solutions are proving their value for flood resilience, pollutant filtering and community engagement. 

Parks and Water Infrastructure Cross Paths 

At Crater Lake National Park, a $50.8 million trail and marina overhaul may seem like a recreational project, but don’t overlook its water infrastructure implications. The plan includes rockfall mitigation, new marina facilities, and restroom infrastructure, all on sensitive terrain with substantial seasonal water flow. While not a traditional water treatment project, it underscores how water-related infrastructure is being integrated into tourism, public safety and land conservation planning. 

Why This Matters Now 

Even with political uncertainty and brief funding pauses, federal and local commitment to water infrastructure is strong. The projects outlined here are all slated for late 2025 or 2026 construction. That means procurement teams are mobilizing this year. If your firm provides engineering, technology, equipment, or compliance services, the time to act is now. 

These upgrades are part of a national wave addressing deferred maintenance, environmental compliance, and future water demand. Watch for more solicitation announcements in Q3 and Q4. Whether you’re on the ground at a treatment plant or helping write the RFP, this is a chance to align your operations with where the real investment is happening. 

SOURCES: Smart Water Magazine, Le Mars Sentinel, The Traverse Ticker, KOCO 5 News, San Antonio Express-News, National Park Service 

In a decisive move to combat the growing threat of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) contamination, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized amendments that eliminate safety exemptions for new PFAS and persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals. For water treatment professionals, this marks a pivotal moment in regulatory oversight that will have far-reaching implications for plant operations, compliance protocols, and public health efforts. This update not only enhances the scrutiny of new PFAS entering the market but also aligns federal regulations with the latest environmental safety standards.  

Understanding the Final Amendments  

The new rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ensures that all new PFAS and certain PBT chemicals are subject to full, robust safety reviews before manufacture. Historically, some PFAS could bypass stringent review processes through Low Volume Exemptions (LVE) or Low Release and Exposure Exemptions (LoREX) if their production volumes or exposure potential were deemed low. However, the EPA has now made it clear that the risks posed by these “forever chemicals” require comprehensive assessment, regardless of quantity or exposure level. 

This rule is part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s broader commitment to addressing PFAS contamination, as outlined in the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap. By removing these exemptions, the agency seeks to prevent new PFAS from slipping through regulatory cracks and entering the environment unchecked. 

What This Means for Water Treatment Professionals 

PFAS contamination has become one of the most pressing challenges in water treatment. These chemicals are used in countless industrial and consumer applications, from non-stick cookware to firefighting foams, and their resilience makes them difficult to break down, leading to persistent contamination in our greatest resource. This new rule carries several key implications for those in the industry: 

1. Enhanced Regulatory Compliance: 
   Treatment plants will need to stay vigilant in monitoring water sources for potential new PFAS contaminants. The elimination of LVE and LoREX exemptions means there is less risk of unknown or unvetted PFAS entering the water supply, simplifying compliance with existing and upcoming PFAS regulations. 

2. Public Health Protection: 
   By ensuring that all new PFAS are subjected to a full safety review, the EPA is taking a proactive approach to protect communities from the health risks associated with these chemicals. This directly benefits water treatment facilities by reducing the chances of unexpected PFAS contamination that can lead to costly mitigation efforts and public health crises. 

3. Operational Adjustments: 
   Water treatment operators may need to review and potentially upgrade treatment technologies to handle PFAS contaminants more effectively. Advanced filtration techniques such as activated carbon adsorption, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis remain critical tools in PFAS removal. Staying informed about the regulatory landscape ensures operators are prepared to adapt their processes as needed. 

4. Transparency and Accountability: 
   The new rule emphasizes transparency by aligning the chemical review process with TSCA requirements. Water treatment professionals will have clearer insights into the chemicals entering the market and their associated risks. This improved transparency helps in making informed decisions about treatment strategies and public communication. 

Aligning with the 2016 TSCA Amendments 

The amendments also ensure that the EPA makes one of five possible safety determinations for 100 percent of new chemical submissions. This change reflects the intent of the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which strengthened TSCA to ensure that no new chemicals enter the market without appropriate safety assessments. 

For water treatment professionals, this consistency in the review process offers greater confidence that chemicals approved for manufacturing have undergone rigorous safety checks. It reduces the risk of unexpected contaminants appearing in water supplies and places accountability firmly on chemical manufacturers to prove safety upfront. 

The EPA’s revocation of safety exemptions for PFAS and PBT chemicals is a significant step in protecting public health and the environment. For water treatment professionals, this change means more robust regulatory oversight, fewer risks of unexpected contamination, and a clearer path toward ensuring safe, clean water for all communities. By staying informed and prepared, the industry can continue to meet these challenges and safeguard the future of water quality. 

SOURCES: Smart Water Magazine, EPA  

The re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 brings with it a notable shift in U.S. water policy. As the new administration moves away from sustainability-focused initiatives, water treatment and utility professionals will see a change in infrastructure funding, water quality regulations, climate change policy, and the overall regulatory landscape. Let’s explore how these expected changes will affect various aspects of the water industry. 

Infrastructure: Moving Toward Private Investment 

Under the Biden administration, modernizing water infrastructure was a priority, with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directing $3.6 billion in 2024 alone toward water systems. This funding supported lead removal, pipeline modernization, and projects aimed at protecting public health. Trump’s administration is likely to reduce federal intervention in water infrastructure, opting instead to encourage state, local, and private investment partnerships. 

For water treatment professionals, this shift means that reliance on federal grants and subsidies for upgrading systems may decrease. Instead, a new focus on private investment may require utilities to engage in public-private partnerships that prioritize economic efficiency. While this market-centered approach could encourage innovation and cost-cutting, it may also lead to fewer projects targeting the underserved, as private investors prioritize quick returns over broad public health initiatives. 

Water Quality: A Deregulatory Agenda 

Water quality protection was a central issue for the Biden administration, which implemented the first national drinking water standards for PFAS and worked to remove lead service lines in vulnerable communities. Conversely, Trump’s approach is likely to reduce federal regulations and oversight. A prime example of this approach is the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which redefined federal protections for smaller streams and wetlands, effectively reducing the scope of the Clean Water Act. 

While reduced federal oversight may temporarily lower compliance costs and ease the regulatory burden for utilities, this change could pose long-term challenges. Water utilities, especially those near deregulated industries, may face increased contamination risks if pollution control standards are relaxed. This means more local governments and utilities may need to take on additional responsibilities to ensure water quality, which could lead to increased costs or pressure to establish local regulations in areas previously protected by federal standards. 

Climate Change: Shifting Responsibility for Resilience 

Climate resilience was an urgent priority for the Biden administration, which allocated billions to prepare water systems for climate-related threats such as floods and droughts. In contrast, Trump’s stance downplays climate change concerns in favor of supporting fossil fuel development and reducing environmental regulation. 

This pivot could leave many water utilities, especially those in vulnerable regions, with limited federal support for climate adaptation projects. Consequently, utilities will likely need to secure alternative funding to adapt infrastructure for extreme weather. Private funding for resilience projects may be challenging to secure, as immediate financial returns are not always evident. Water professionals may also experience uneven climate readiness across regions, with wealthier or urban areas better positioned to fund their adaptation needs than rural or underserved areas. 

Navigating the New Landscape in Water Treatment 

For water treatment professionals, managing operational risk in this new landscape will require adaptive strategies to handle potential contamination or infrastructure deficiencies. Some utilities may benefit from reduced regulatory costs, but others might face heightened exposure to liability if contamination incidents arise from relaxed standards. 

With the water industry shifting from federal to private-sector-driven initiatives, companies that support the water sector will need to adapt. The transition away from federally mandated sustainability initiatives may decrease demand for certain engineering and construction projects, as public contracts for sustainability-focused infrastructure are expected to decline. Instead, the focus may shift to cost-effective, market-driven projects, especially those funded through public-private partnerships. 

For digital solution providers, the decrease in compliance-based demands could impact tools focused solely on regulatory reporting. However, as utilities increasingly prioritize operational efficiency, demand for digital solutions that enhance cost reduction and equipment longevity is likely to persist. 

In the water treatment sector, relaxed water quality standards may reduce the immediate need for advanced treatment technologies. Nonetheless, sectors with high quality standards—such as pharmaceuticals and food production—will still require these technologies, sustaining demand for advanced treatment options in certain applications. 

A Proactive Path Forward 

As the water industry faces regulatory shifts and evolving public expectations, remaining agile and adaptable will be essential. Companies can build resilience by emphasizing data-driven decision-making, adopting technologies that streamline operations, and actively engaging with private investors to secure funding for essential projects. While the short-term outlook may bring some regulatory relief, the industry’s commitment to responsible water management will play a significant role in ensuring the sustainability and quality of U.S. water resources in the long term. 

In the face of anticipated challenges, the water sector has an opportunity to lead by example, demonstrating how innovation and resilience can sustain high standards in an evolving regulatory landscape. By prioritizing adaptability and public health, water utilities and supporting industries can navigate the changing policy environment while continuing to safeguard the nation’s water resources. 

SOURCES: EPA, Resources.org, Smart Water Magazine 

The recent filing of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)’s opening brief in the case against the EPA’s PFAS drinking water regulation marks a significant step in the ongoing debate over the balance between public health protection and the practical implementation of environmental regulations. Let’s take a deep dive into the key arguments presented by the two organizations, explore the broader implications of the PFAS rule, and offer insights into potential avenues for resolution. 

A Closer Look at the AWWA-AMWA Arguments 

At the heart of the AWWA-AMWA statement is a contention that the EPA’s PFAS rule deviated from the established procedures outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The organizations argue that the EPA’s accelerated timeline, limited opportunities for public comment, and use of a novel equation for PFAS standards undermine the scientific rigor and transparency required for effective regulation. 

Specifically, the AWWA and AMWA point to the following shortcomings in the EPA’s approach: 

• Truncated Rulemaking Process: The organizations contend that the EPA’s decision to expedite the rulemaking process limited the time available for thorough scientific evaluation and public input. They argue that a more deliberate approach would have allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of the risks posed by PFAS and the potential impacts of the regulation on water utilities and consumers. 

• Curtailed Public Comment: The AWWA and AMWA argue that the EPA did not provide sufficient opportunities for stakeholders to express their concerns and offer alternative approaches. They contend that a more open and transparent process would have allowed for a wider range of perspectives to be considered, potentially leading to a more effective and equitable regulation. 

• Novel Equation for PFAS Standards: The organizations criticize the EPA’s use of a novel equation rather than a clearly defined measurement as a standard for certain PFAS, arguing that this approach lacks scientific precedent and may not accurately reflect the risks posed by these contaminants. They contend that a more established and well-validated approach would have provided greater certainty and confidence in the regulatory standards. 

Implications of the PFAS Rule 

The outcome of the AWWA-AMWA case could have far-reaching implications for both public health and the water industry. If the court upholds the EPA’s rule, it could set a precedent for future regulatory actions, potentially leading to more aggressive and less flexible approaches to addressing emerging contaminants. This could place a significant burden on water utilities, which may struggle to meet the new standards in a timely and cost-effective manner. 

On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the AWWA and AMWA could force the EPA to reconsider its approach and adopt a more deliberative and science-based process. This could lead to more effective and equitable regulations that better balance the need to protect public health with the practical realities of implementation. 

Potential Avenues for Resolution 

Beyond the legal proceedings, there are several potential avenues for resolving the ongoing PFAS controversy. One option is for the EPA to engage in a more collaborative dialogue with stakeholders, including water utilities, environmental groups, and industry representatives, to develop a consensus-based approach to PFAS regulation. This could involve establishing a working group or task force to identify and address the key challenges and opportunities associated with PFAS management. 

Another possibility is for Congress to provide additional guidance or funding to support PFAS research and remediation efforts. By investing in scientific research, Congress could help to improve our understanding of the risks posed by PFAS and develop more effective and efficient mitigation strategies. 

Finally, it is essential to consider the role of technology and innovation in addressing the PFAS challenge. By investing in new technologies for PFAS detection, removal, and destruction, we may be able to develop more effective and sustainable solutions to this pressing environmental issue. 

The AWWA-AMWA statement on the EPA’s PFAS rule highlights the complex challenges associated with regulating emerging contaminants. While the organizations’ arguments raise valid concerns about the EPA’s approach, it is also essential to consider the urgent need to protect public health from the potential risks posed by PFAS. Ultimately, a resolution to this issue will likely require a balance between scientific rigor, public input, and the practical realities of implementing effective environmental regulations.  

SOURCES: AWWA, Water Online