The City of Kalamazoo says it has no position on a lawsuit challenging new federal rules to limit PFAS in drinking water. But Kalamazoo belongs to the pair of water utility associations challenging those rules, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA).
An advocate for the EPA rules argues that Kalamazoo's memberships in the utility associations effectively make the city a supporter of the lawsuit, whether it endorses the case or not.
Regulating PFAS
The Environmental Protection Agency announced the new drinking water rules in the spring. They regulate five individual PFAS: PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA (“Gen X”), as well as mixtures of two or more of the following compounds: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS.
President Joe Biden hailed the rules as a public health achievement.
“Every American deserves to be able to turn on their water tap or faucet and be able to drink clean water,” Biden said in a statement quoted in an EPA announcement.
But in public statements and court filings in the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the AWWA and the AMWA suggest the EPA’s rules will be burdensome for ratepayers and that they’re based on bad science.
A chemical industry group, a manufacturing association and PFAS maker Chemours are also contesting the standards.
“The Chemours Company manufactures and uses hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) and would be harmed by the stringent and scientifically-unsupported regulation of HFPO-DA in the final rule,” Chemours writes in one statement filed with the court.
“Our position is neutral”
The City of Kalamazoo estimates that it pays about $5,000 a year in dues to each water utility association, the AMWA and the AWWA.
In an interview, city spokesperson Michael Smith and Public Services Director James Baker emphasized that the city has a “neutral” stance on the lawsuit, which it did not suggest or help to plan.
“We were never consulted on it,” Baker said. “Our position is neutral, so, I think that’s a bit of a stretch to say that we’re part of this.”
Baker noted that Kalamazoo is in compliance with state and federal laws on PFAS levels in drinking water, and is working on plans to protect the water supply from PFAS contamination in the future. Michigan has set its own limits on PFAS in drinking water.
But in Erik Olson’s opinion, membership in the AMWA and AWWA amounts to support, since the associations are pursuing their case on behalf of those members.
Olson is the senior strategic director for health and environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group that maintains the EPA’s new rules are grounded in sound science. In fact, Olson said the EPA would have been justified in setting a tougher standard.
“The way that the drinking water utility trade associations show that they have a right to be in court is that they point to individual members like Kalamazoo or other members and say, ‘look, we're having to spend money and therefore we're suing over these rules,” he said.
The NRDC plans to help defend the EPA’s PFAS rules in court. Olson suggested that AMWA and AWWA members that disagree with the utility associations’ lawsuit resign from the groups.
“If you are using ratepayer dollars, people who are drinking your water are paying you, and you're turning around and suing public health agencies to block standards intended to protect the very people who are paying your water bills.”
Money and prevention
Olson said the EPA’s new PFAS rules will offer major benefits for public health.
“We know these chemicals share some very problematic tendencies,” he said. “They are very toxic at extremely low doses, in the parts per trillion in tap water. They also are quite persistent, both in the environment and in our bodies.”
Olson added that it is “going to cost some money” to get PFAS out of the drinking water and keep them out.
“But let’s talk about the public health impact if you don’t control these chemicals in our drinking water. A lot of people are going to be getting cancer and are going to be getting sick. It has impacts on developing fetuses and on our ability to fight off infections. There are real public health consequences to people being exposed to these highly toxic chemicals.”
Olson also argued that the cost to remove PFAS from drinking water is not always as expensive as opponents of the rules claim, especially compared with the cost of not acting.
He said in many cases, utilities “figure out a way that they can minimize the cost by either shutting down wells that are contaminated or adopting limited treatment just for those that are, and it saves them quite a bit of money, and their customers a lot of money.”
Olson noted the Biden administration’s bipartisan infrastructure law and a recent settlement with several PFAS manufacturers as potential sources of help with paying for PFAS-removal costs.
Kalamazoo, for its part, has indicated that it is willing to invest in infrastructure to keep PFAS out of the water. Michigan has set its own limits on PFAS that are independent of federal standards, shaping the city’s plans.
“We're really working to minimize those levels” of PFAS and other contaminants, Public Services director James Baker said. The city has a proposal to consolidate two water stations, “with a new constructed station to treat for iron, manganese and PFAS.” The current cost estimate is $51.3 million.
“We also have work planned for other stations to employ treatment, improve treatment at existing stations and consolidate and build treatment where treatment does not exist,” Baker added.
