According to a recent analysis by YSL News utilizing new data from the EPA, local authorities primarily attribute the presence of toxic “forever chemicals” in drinking water to sources such as airports, utility services like sewage treatment plants, and military installations.

In the largest effort to monitor the proliferation of PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, thousands of public water systems began testing for these chemicals last year under the Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance.

As utilities submit their findings, the EPA has also inquired if they are aware of any potential contaminating sources affecting their water supply.

While many systems responded with “No” or “Don’t know” in the EPA records released this month, approximately 730 identified potential sources from a provided list of about two dozen options.

Among the 168 water systems reporting PFAS sources, military bases emerged as the primary identified source, especially in systems that recorded contamination exceeding the EPA’s newly established limits. Cities like Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Sacramento are part of the 53 systems linking their PFAS issues to military installations.

Cincinnati and Dayton, another city in Ohio, have pointed to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base as a contributor to their PFAS challenges. Dayton is even pursuing legal action against the federal government to cover water treatment expenses, which is part of a larger wave of litigation targeting PFAS manufacturers and polluters.

“Our customers are incurring $100 million in costs (to eliminate PFAS), yet Wright-Patterson continues to release these substances,” expressed Jeff Swertfeger, Cincinnati’s water quality and treatment director.

“Why are we placing this burden on the shoulders of water system ratepayers? Why are individual polluters allowed to release these chemicals given that they are regulated in our water supply?” Swertfeger reflected in frustration.

“We genuinely hope that when the EPA initially regulated PFAS, their focus was on eliminating it from the environment first rather than shifting the responsibility onto us.”

To What Extent is PFAS Present in Drinking Water?

Recent findings indicate that over 1,000 drinking water systems have detected PFAS levels surpassing the limits set by the EPA in April, according to YSL News’s examination.

Nearly 400 of these systems, approximately 11% with complete measurement data, have reported multiple exceedances of PFAS limits, suggesting they may need to take steps to purify the water supplied to residents.

PFAS are a group of highly persistent chemicals that accumulate both in the environment and human bodies, increasing the likelihood of various cancers and other severe health issues.

Since January 2023, numerous drinking water systems have been testing for nearly 30 types of PFAS chemicals. The recent data represents less than half of the expected measurements the agency plans to gather by 2026, which means the number of impacted systems is expected to rise.

The EPA estimates that around 6,000 systems serving up to 100 million Americans will eventually have to implement measures—like installing costly filtration units or decommissioning contaminated wells—to meet the new regulatory limits.

What Are the Sources of These Contaminants?

Military bases have emerged as the leading suspected source among water systems that found PFAS levels exceeding the EPA’s new limits. However, YSL News’s findings also show that airports are a close second, identified by 50 systems, including those in Fresno, California; Newport News, Virginia; and Greensboro, North Carolina.

When YSL News inquired with water utilities for supporting evidence regarding the sources they indicated, some offered scientific studies and technical documents as justification.

For instance, Newport News Waterworks cited a 2021 report highlighting the Richmond International Airport, including the Air National Guard facility and Superfund site, as the main contributor to its PFAS issues.

In Greensboro, city officials commissioned a study that pinpointed the industrial zone near Piedmont Triad International Airport as the likely origin of PFAS contamination, primarily attributed to the use of firefighting foams, as stated by Michael Borchers, director of the water resources department.

While some utilities lack solid proof, they still submitted potential sources “to the best of their ability and knowledge,” according to EPA spokesperson Angela Hackel.

Department of Defense Spokesperson Robert Ditchey indicated that he could not provide details regarding the EPA’s data collection or analysis methods. However, he did express concerns about the language used by the EPA, which inquires about “current and/or historical potential sources of PFAS that may have affected” the water quality in different systems.

In an email, Ditchey noted that, “the phrasing raises some ambiguity, making the answers to this question subject to various interpretations.”

For many years, both military and civilian airfields have utilized PFAS-containing firefighting foams to extinguish gasoline fires. The Department of Defense has been in the process of converting approximately 1,500 facilities to alternatives free from fluorine, with plans to cease the use of PFAS-based foams entirely by October 1.

However, earlier this month, the defense department requested a postponement of this deadline to October 2025, with the option for an additional year of extension if necessary.

Documents indicate that the defense department is looking into PFAS contamination issues at more than 700 current and former military bases worldwide.

At Wright-Patterson Air Force Base located in Dayton, Ohio, groundwater testing conducted in June revealed PFOS levels as high as 7,400 parts per trillion (ppt) and PFOA levels reaching 450 ppt, both known as “forever chemicals.” The EPA has set a maximum allowable concentration for these chemicals in drinking water at 4 ppt.

One of Dayton’s water treatment facilities, situated directly downstream from the base, recorded PFOS concentrations exceeding EPA limits every quarter last year, with levels ranging between 6.2 and 10 ppt.

“The city of Dayton has initiated legal action against the Air Force regarding the PFAS contamination coming from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing litigation, we are unable to provide further comments,” stated Michael Powell, the city’s water department director.

Some Air Force operations are located within a mile of Dayton’s public water wells, as highlighted in the initial complaint of the pending lawsuit, filed in May 2021. The city alleges that the base has made “no efforts to halt or even address the ongoing spread of its PFAS contamination into the city’s wellfield and water supply,” despite being aware that the city depends on its sole-source aquifer for drinking water.

The lawsuit claims that over 2.5 million residents in southwest Ohio depend on this aquifer for safe drinking water. Contaminants from the base appear to flow downriver to Cincinnati, where a treatment facility within the same river system recorded PFOS levels above the acceptable limit on two occasions last year, according to EPA statistics.

According to Cincinnati’s water quality superintendent, Swertfeger, “We are aware of multiple sources that are likely contributing PFAS into our aquifer.” He pointed out that in addition to Wright-Patterson, Rumpke Waste & Recycling, a local landfill operator, was also implicated.

Swertfeger noted, “Runoff from some of their properties shows elevated PFAS levels, and we believe it is affecting our wells too.”

In response, Rumpke spokesperson Amanda Pratt mentioned to YSL News that the sampling did not occur close enough to their landfill to definitively conclude that their facility contributes to higher waterway PFAS levels. She emphasized that modern landfills, like Rumpke’s, have protective liners below and above the waste to ensure any leachate is directed towards treatment systems.

Regardless of the source, Cincinnati is investing over $100 million in advanced granular activated carbon treatment systems to eliminate PFAS released into the environment.

“This problem isn’t ours to solve; we are not responsible for its creation,” Swertfeger added, stating that the new EPA mandates have effectively assigned them the cleanup responsibility. “We feel some frustration because the polluters are not being held accountable.”

Dayton isn’t the only city pursuing financial recovery from polluters for the PFAS cleanup. Recently, New Mexico expanded its lawsuit against the Department of Defense, seeking to recover “all past and future cleanup expenses” related to three Air Force bases, a missile range, and an Army base.

“Cannon Air Force Base and other Department of Defense facilities have caused significant damage to our planet’s most essential resource—water,” stated Maggie Hart Stebbins, New Mexico’s Office of Natural Resources Trustee, in a press release. “When our residents can’t access clean groundwater, they suffer. It’s time the federal government compensates the communities burdened by its pollution.”

In the federal court system, environmental lawsuits are often bundled together in a broader context.

The ongoing situation involves numerous individuals collectively pursuing legal action akin to class-action lawsuits. Nearly 10,000 cases seeking damages for PFAS contamination resulting from firefighting foams—including cases from Dayton and New Mexico—have been consolidated into a single federal lawsuit in South Carolina.

In February, the federal government attempted to dismiss more than two dozen of these cases, asserting that it was immune to such lawsuits since the use of firefighting foam was not mandatory but left to the judgment of base commanders. Some military installations are addressing the contamination through the EPA’s Superfund cleanup process, and the government contended it should not also face lawsuits.

Ditchey, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense (DoD), did not comment on the ongoing legal matters.

However, he emphasized the military’s commitment to transparency with communities affected by PFAS pollution.

“The DoD remains focused on cleaning up areas with the most critical risks to human health and will continue to enhance cleanup efforts across the nation,” Ditchey stated in writing.

He elaborated that the Air Force, Army, and Navy routinely test drinking water for certain persistent chemicals, both on and off military bases, and some test results are available online. They also supply bottled water, filtration systems, and connections to municipal water systems when PFOS and PFOA levels exceed 70 ppt, while the new EPA threshold, established in April, is set at 4 ppt.

“The actions of the DoD align with the EPA’s guidelines,” Ditchey noted. “The department’s main focus is to significantly lower elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA in drinking water when the DoD is a known source.”

Water Utilities Avoid Accountability for PFAS, Yet Some Express Concerns About Identifying Polluters

Officials from water utilities that YSL News spoke to over the past year expressed frustration, echoing Swertfeger’s views that they are burdened with the costs of cleaning up pollutants.

However, when asked about their responses to the EPA’s questionnaires on PFAS origins, many officials hesitated to provide clear answers.

For instance, Sacramento’s water utility identified military bases and waste management facilities as potential sources of contamination. Records from the Defense Department indicate ongoing PFAS investigations at several Air Force and Army locations near the city.

“The city’s response to the EPA’s reporting requirement is not an accusation or claim,” wrote Mark Severeid, Sacramento’s water quality superintendent. “Military bases and waste management facilities are recognized sources of PFAS. Given the presence of several in the area, these potential sources were indicated on the checklist.”

In May, the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department listed airports as a possible PFAS source in its EPA data submission. When YSL News requested additional information, spokesperson Jennifer Messemer-Skold called it an error.

“The laboratory personnel mistakenly selected ‘airport operations’ as a reason for the PFAS detected in the water,” Messemer-Skold explained. “The staff person has since amended the report to indicate ‘other’ as a potential source.”

Recently released EPA data reveal that Miami-Dade County has changed its response to “Don’t know” regarding possible PFAS sources. Meanwhile, cities like Hialeah and Miami Beach, which obtain drinking water from Miami-Dade’s utility, still list airports as potential PFAS contamination sources.

According to Messemer-Skold, upgrading Miami-Dade’s water treatment to eliminate PFAS could incur costs up to $4 billion, but she stated that they are “unable to speculate on specific facilities or industries and their potential impact on PFAS.”

Two facilities operated by Veolia Water Delaware in Wilmington exceeded the new PFOA limits on four occasions last year, according to EPA data, and they have identified several unregulated PFAS chemicals. This utility cited “military base” as a potential source of the contamination.

“We respectfully choose not to comment on those additional data fields,” said Adam Lisberg, senior vice president of communications for Veolia’s municipal water division.

In larger urban areas, where many potential sources of PFAS exist, it can be challenging to determine who is responsible, noted Jared Hayes, a senior policy analyst with the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental watchdog. He added that some individuals may hesitate to accuse military bases that are vital economic and social pillars of their communities.

“Many residents and workers in these areas are veterans. They may be reluctant to point fingers at the DoD,” Hayes observed. “It’s as if they think, ‘I don’t want to hold the base commanders accountable because they weren’t aware of the situation.’ However, the DoD was informed. The Pentagon was aware, and that is the crux of the problem.”

Hayes referenced numerous military-commissioned reports dating as far back as 1973, including one that noted that rainbow trout exposed to firefighting foams died within four days. An Army Corps of Engineers report from 1991 labeled the foam a “hazardous material” that should be replaced with safer options.

YSL News also asked the Defense Department to respond to Hayes’ claims, but a spokesperson did not provide an answer before the deadline.

What Are the EPA’s Next Steps?

The data that utilities self-reported regarding how PFAS is contaminating America’s drinking water will assist the EPA in understanding potential links between known contamination sources and the quality of treated drinking water, stated EPA spokesperson Dominique Joseph.

She mentioned that this information helped EPA officials assess the costs and benefits of limiting PFAS in drinking water before the agency approved those limits in April. It also aids in the development of resources, such as an online mapping tool that highlights potential sources, which can help communities address PFAS contamination directly at its origins.

Last December, the EPA’s annual report on PFAS progress emphasized holding polluters accountable and reducing emissions from industrial sources as essential priorities.

“Restricting discharges from industrial facilities that utilize PFAS presents a substantial opportunity to safely eliminate these substances,” Joseph stated.

The report states, “pollution should be addressed before it can enter the environment or wastewater systems.”

According to Hayes from the Environmental Working Group, localized data from water utilities can assist in closing the gaps in reaching these objectives.

“We hope these utilities can truly help establish those standards and alleviate some pressure on them,” Hayes remarked. “It’s only fair to shift the financial responsibility to the polluters and make them accountable for cleaning up their own pollution.”