The goal of SB 21/22 is to improve and restore overall clean water protections. The legislature amended The Water Quality Act to establish a permitting and water quality standards system for groundwater discharge. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) must establish a Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (PDES) to regulate the discharge of pollutants into the state’s waters.

Why Does SB 21/22 Matter to New Mexico?

SB 21/22 fills a massive regulatory shortcoming and will protect New Mexico’s primary water resources, safe drinking water, community health, and the long-term viability of agriculture and recreation. SB 21/22 is New Mexico’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision in 2023, which resulted in the loss of federal protections for nearly all of the state’s streams, rivers, and wetlands—with New Mexico not having an all-inclusive groundwater discharge permitting system left the unprotected waters vulnerable, named the most engaged in the United States by American Rivers in 2024. The new state-level permit system for pollutant discharges into the surface water creates the authority for New Mexico to enforce the federal Clean Water Act, regardless of federal protection status. Additionally, the state will focus on polluted groundwater, directly place cleanup accountability on polluters, and establish a dedicated funding source.

The anticipated benefits of SB 21

• Improved water quality of surface and groundwater protections from pollution, which protects drinking water, agriculture, recreation, and wildlife.
• Reduced risks associated with contaminated water to protect the future of New Mexico’s public health.
• Economic benefits for locations with clean water are more attractive for business growth and development and support industries that rely on clean water, such as outdoor recreation and agriculture.
• Local controls give authority to New Mexico to oversee the protection of its water resources, not having to rely on federal regulations.
• Protection for vulnerable communities that face higher risks of the impacts of water pollution.
• Polluters will be held accountable as the responsible party for cleaning up contamination through updated enforcement policies.

How will this be funded?

SB 21/22 outlines a dedicated funding source to support the cleanup of New Mexico’s contaminated sites through responding, investigating, and remediating, and all polluters bear the burden of costs to clean up their pollution, not state tax dollars. Initially, SB 21/22 planned to appropriate a $50 million fund for groundwater cleanup efforts and surface water quality fees and penalties directed to a water quality management fund for administering the new permit rules similar to the final bill. The final bill also establishes penalties for violations of the PDES Act, including fines and imprisonment.

With the implementation of SB 21/22, similar to the federal Clean Water Act, there are exemptions. An exemption may include traditional farming and ranching activities and associated acequia operations to remove unneeded regulatory burdens on essential agricultural practices, only existing surface waters in farm production, and if the discharge is nontoxic.

What’s next? 

New Mexico will move forward to establish a comprehensive state permitting program. It may look to get authorization from the U.S. EPA for surface water permitting, which would be one of the few remaining states to do this. Overall, New Mexicans will have greater control over the quality of surface waters. Developing and implementing a permit will not happen overnight, and it will likely take a few years to be fully effective; this is a critical first step and a long-term commitment to secure the future of essential water resources.

Source: SB 21/22 – WATER QUALITY & POLLUTION

Written by: Andrew Kalemba, Operations Specialist at the Southwest EFC 

Featured Image by Brigitte Werner from Pixabay

1. Improving Water Quality 

Water in the distribution system can become stagnant, especially in low-flow areas or dead-end pipes. Stagnation leads to sediment buildup, bacterial growth and potential chemical imbalances, which can degrade water quality. Regular flushing clears out contaminants, ensures proper chlorine residual levels and delivers fresher water to customers. For small systems with limited resources, this proactive measure is a cost- effective way to maintain compliance with water quality regulations.  

2. Preventing Infrastructure Damage 

Sediment and debris in pipes can cause corrosion, reduce flow capacity and damage system components over time. A flushing program helps remove these materials, extending the life span of pipes and reducing maintenance costs. It also helps operators plan and prepare budgets for future replacement of existing equipment. For small systems where staff and budgets are limited, preventing costly repairs through routine flushing is a smart investment. 

3. Enhancing Customer Confidence 

Discolored water, strange odors, or poor taste can erode public trust in a water system. Flushing prevents these issues, ensuring customers receive clean, clear water. For small communities, where word-of-mouth travel fast, consistent water quality builds confidence and strengthens community relationships.  

4. Meeting Regulatory Requirements 

Regulatory agencies often require water systems to maintain specific water quality standards. A flushing program helps small systems meet these standards by controlling biofilm growth, maintaining disinfectant levels and reducing the risk of contamination. Documenting flushing activities also demonstrates compliance during inspections. 

Written by: Mike Rivera, Water/Wastewater Utility Specialist at the Southwest EFC 

Featured Image courtesy of rick on Flickr.

Humans have been recycling in one form or another for hundreds (if not thousands) of years.  For most of history, new materials have been expensive and difficult to obtain, so people used and reused whatever they had.  This has been particularly true in times of war or economic shortages. Mass scale recycling was born sometime in the early 1970s.  The first recycling “programs” required consumers to separate recyclable materials into different bins, such as glass, paper, metal and plastic They also required recyclable material to be clean, and often consumers had to transport the bins to recycling centers. This recycling model was fairly effective, with most of the material actually being recycled, but did not gain wide acceptance.

In the early 1980s, the first curbside recycling programs began to appear, and the country eventually moved to a “single stream” or mixed recycling model, in which all recyclable materials are put into one bin.  Along with this change, some municipalities began to mandate recycling. This greatly increased the number of households willing to recycle, but it also created another problem, namely that the material still had to be sorted before it could actually be recycled. The recycling industry has struggled to develop machinery to accomplish the sorting, but the problem persists, and other problems have arisen.  As Americans enthusiastically signed on to the notion of recycling, they have begun to cram their recycling bins with all sorts of material that is not recyclable. This is known as “aspirational recycling”, but whether it is the result of extreme optimism or just laziness is hard to say. But there is a lot of confusion about what is recyclable and what is not. One of the problems comes from the use of that little circular arrow symbol that every manufacturer now stamps on plastic containers. The symbol was originally designed by a University of Southern California student in 1970 for a contest tied to the first Earth Day celebration.  The numbers printed inside the symbol (from 1 to 7) refer to the type of plastic used in the container.  Here’s what they mean.

1. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE/PET): The most widely used recyclable plastic.
2. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE): The second most widely used plastic and easiest to break down in recycling.
3. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): Not really recyclable.
4. Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE): Accepted by some (but not all) curbside recycling programs.
5. Polypropylene (PP): Often used in food containers that can be reused. Becoming more commonly accepted in curbside recycling programs.
6. Polystyrene (PS): Known as Styrofoam: Very difficult to recycle. Has been shown to leach dangerous toxins over time. The worst of all the plastics.
7. Everything Else: A catch-all for all sorts of plastic material, some of which is not even known to the manufacturer. Not usually acceptable in recycling programs.

The use of this symbol has never been regulated, and different manufacturers may use it in different ways. Just because it has that little recycling symbol on it does not mean it will (or even can) get recycled.

A great deal of the plastic we use is not really eligible for recycling. The reasons for this are multiple. For some plastics (called thermoset plastic) there really isn’t a process to recycle it.  For others, it simply isn’t economically feasible, meaning that the cost of recycling is greater than the cost of producing new plastic. Many plastics are used in tandem with other types of plastic or other materials, and it is not possible to separate them.  Other plastics are too dirty to recycle.  Some examples of items that seem to most of us to be recyclable, but which are not recyclable are:

• Coffee cups. That’s right, that highly touted “recyclable” paper coffee cup cannot be recycled. Why?  Because the inside is coated with a thin layer of plastic. This layer of plastic keeps the coffee from soaking through the paper and helps keep the coffee hot. But it also cannot easily be separated from the paper and that makes it not recyclable. The same goes for cartons used for milk, broth and juice.
• Any plastic marked with a “3” (Polyvinyl Chloride or PVC)
• Any plastic marked with a “6” (Polystyrene or PS)
• Any plastic marked with a “7”
• Plastic bags
• Plastic straws
• Any type of plastic that is dirty—i.e. has food residue in it
• Small plastic items like lids. Even though they may be used on recyclable bottles, they are usually of an unknown type of plastic. In addition, they are too small to be effectively sorted and recycled.
• “Compostable” bags and containers. Recycling and composting are two entirely different processes which require different facilities.  When these items are included with recycling, they have to be picked out and sent to the landfill. Unless your community has a composting program that can handle these items (with a separate bin for collecting them), you should put them in your regular trash.  They will not break down in home composting systems, and when enclosed in a landfill, they break down much like plastic—into smaller and smaller pieces that do not fully degrade back into the soil.

For the most part, only clear plastic (such as water bottles) labeled with “1” (Polyethylene Terephthalate or PETE) or “2” (High Density Polyethylene or HDPE) is actually recycled. Colored plastic, although potentially recyclable, poses another problem. For colored plastic to be recycled effectively it really needs to be sorted by color.  But every manufacturer of bottles and containers (from milk to shampoo) has a different array of colors. Sorting by colors is practically impossible.  If all the colors are mixed together, you end up with a dull brown or grey—a color that is not marketable. Some manufacturers have “solved” this problem by putting a tight colored sleeve on a clear container instead of coloring the plastic. But that creates a different problem—that of getting the sleeve off before the recycling process can begin. And, of course, the sleeve is often a type of plastic that is not recyclable!

Even if the plastic can be recycled, it can only be recycled once or twice. That plastic water bottle is not simply melted down and made into another plastic water bottle. Most plastic that is recycled is actually “downcycled”.  It is made into something of lower quality and lesser value, such as carpet or a cotton-poly fabric or fleece. These items are not recyclable, and they are STILL Plastic, which will end up somewhere in the environment. Furthermore, the recycling of plastic always involves the addition of new “virgin” plastic to increase its quality.  That means more plastic. By contrast, both metal and glass are recyclable almost indefinitely.

Another issue to be considered here is what portion of the potentially recyclable material is actually recycled? Let’s consider what happens to your yogurt cup after you put it in the recycle bin.  It gets picked up by the recycling division of your municipal solid waste management department.  It then gets unloaded to a conveyor belt at the local recycling center and is typically sorted either by machines or by humans, sometimes a combination.  In this process, non-recyclables, small items, and dirty items are removed and sent to the landfill.  The rest is bundled into large bales and sold to a wholesaler who then sells it on. The yogurt container in my fridge right now is labeled with a “5.” That means it is polypropylene, which is a type of plastic that could potentially get recycled. However, if it is dirty it will probably be sent to the landfill. If it is enclosed in a trash bag or broken into small pieces, it will end up in the landfill.  So, a lot of plastic that could be recycled is not being recycled because of problems with the process.  This includes recyclable plastic that is thrown into trash bins instead of recycling bins. No one knows how much this might be.

For decades most recycling in this country ended up being loaded onto ships and sent to China where it would get sorted, and some of it would be recycled into cheap plastic goods—bags, shoes, toys, and endless other plastic items that would then be exported around the world. There were several problems with this system. First, most municipalities could barely break even between what was paid for the recycling and the cost to collect, sort and bundle it.  Second, the carbon footprint of all that transportation just adds to the climate problem. Third, plants in China were stuck with tons of unrecyclable and unusable material, and a lot of it got dumped into landfills, rivers and the ocean.  Then, in 2017, China announced it would no longer accept plastic for recycling starting in January 2018.  Since then, recycling has been piling up as municipalities struggle to figure out what to do with it. Some has been diverted to other countries, most of whom are not really equipped to deal with it. In fact, Malaysia has recently started shipping back large containers of recycling material that has been illegally shipped there.  But the problem remains. With no market for it, many municipalities and solid waste management companies are choosing to just put it in the landfill, where it leaches toxic chemicals into the soil and then into the water supply. Burying plastic in landfills just hides the problem. And it lasts virtually FOREVER.

What’s to be done?  We will consider some alternatives to single-use plastic (some good, some not so good) in part 3 of “What Should I Do with My Yogurt Cup?”

References

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2018/04/04/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-plastic-and-recycling/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauratenenbaum/2019/05/15/these-three-plastic-recycling-myths-will-blow-your-mind/#39ee378475f0
https://www.ptonline.com/blog/post/colored-pet-pretty-to-look-at-headache-for-recyclers-https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/are-bioplastics-made-from-plants-better-for-environment-ocean-plastic/
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/50207/what-do-those-recycling-symbols-and-codes-mean
http://www.all-recycling-facts.com/recycling-symbols.html
https://www.eater.com/2020/1/15/21065446/compostable-take-out-containers
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/asia/malaysia-plastic-waste-return-intl/index.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/03/09/591568093/in-the-recycling-world-why-are-some-cartons-such-a-problem
https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/malaysia-to-send-back-plastic-waste-to-foreign-nations
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/09/20/how-to-recycle-plastic
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/venessawong/plastic-drinking-problem
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/venessawong/coca-cola-is-grappling-with-our-karmic-anxiety-over-all

Written by: Sandi Blanton

Photo by Peggy Gilbert

In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, between San Francisco and Hawaii, is an area roughly 4 times the size of California that contains approximately 1.8 trillion pieces of trash weighing 80,000 metric tons. This area is known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP). It covers 618,000 square miles and is growing.  The trash collects in the area because of a meteorological phenomenon called the North Pacific Gyre, which is a system of circulating currents in the ocean. From time to time, the ocean currents can cause the area to spit out some of the debris, much of which accumulates on the beaches in the Hawaiian Islands.

Most of what accumulates in the GPGP is plastic. The reason for this is twofold. The first is the overwhelming use of plastics for almost everything. The second is that plastic does not biodegrade. If I drop a piece of wood or a paperback book into the ocean, it will float for a while, then sink to the bottom and rot. If I drop a metal cup, the same thing will happen, but it will take a bit longer. But if I drop a plastic water bottle, it will be there, in some form, for centuries, maybe even millennia. But, here’s the really big problem. Exposure to the sun’s UV rays and the sea environment cause the plastic to break up into smaller and smaller pieces.  These tiny pieces make up the majority of the GPGP, creating a toxic “plastic soup.”  What’s worse is that marine wildlife mistake these small particles for food and eat them.  Experts say that 90% of all seabirds have plastic in their bodies, and that plastic will outweigh fish in the ocean by 2050.  In addition, studies have found that plastics attract and accumulate persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and organochlorine pesticides such as DDD, a derivative of DDT. These POPs, when consumed by fish and other marine animals, endanger both the animals that ingest them and others higher up the food chain, including humans and especially human babies.

So, where does all that trash come from?  The really short answer is “us.” From water bottles dropped on the beach, plastic beach toys swept out with the tide, various small “disposable” items that get washed into storm sewers, fishing nets lost at sea, stuff swept off decks of ships or intentionally dumped. It goes on and on.  It is estimated that 80% percent comes from land-based activities in North America and Asia. The remaining 20 percent comes from boaters, offshore oil rigs, and large cargo ships that dump or lose debris directly into the water.  The GPGP is the largest dump in the world. But it’s not the only one. Numerous other ocean gyres where garbage is concentrated have been identified around the globe. And it’s not all concentrated.  It has been estimated that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic, and in some areas, the amount of plastic outweighs the amount of plankton by six times. Of the more than 300 million tons of plastic produced each year, about 10 percent ends up in the ocean. That’s 30 million tons.

50% of the 300 million tons of plastic produced in the world every year is what is known as “single use plastic,” used for only a short time, but lasting in the environment for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years. Immediately we think of plastic water bottles. But that’s not all–  sandwich bags, cling film, milk jugs, yogurt containers, cottage cheese containers, candy wrappers, cookie packages, drinking straws, chip bags, bread bags, produce bags; the plastic bags we take home from grocery stores, department stores, restaurants and hardware stores; laundry detergent bottles, fabric softener, bleach, household cleaners, dishwashing liquid, bottles with oil, vinegar, mayonnaise, mustard, catsup, juice, peanut butter, maple syrup. The co-op grocery in my neighborhood where I shop has a large bulk section, and I generally have felt pretty smug about buying a lot of staples and spices in bulk. But guess what? I bring everything home in a plastic bag, empty that bag into the jars in my pantry and throw the bag away!  (I have, by the way, stopped doing that.)

But the list goes on—every bottle of shampoo, conditioner, shower gel, hand soap and hand lotion, every tube of toothpaste, every tube of deodorant, every bottle of vitamins, nutrition supplements, all those annoying-to-open prescription pill bottles. It’s endless. Even a lot of our clothes are made of plastic, which is what polyester is.  And, of course, there is the slight problem that all plastic is made from oil, which is not endless, and causes all sorts of other problems.

Hold on, you say. Isn’t a lot of that recyclable? Some is and some isn’t.  But there’s a big gap between being recyclable and being recycled.  Mass production of plastic began in the 1950s, only 6 decades ago. In that 60 years, the world has produced 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic (that’s 18.3 trillion pounds!). Of that, only 9% has been recycled.  Most of it—79 percent—is accumulating in landfills or making its way into the natural environment as litter.  Much of it will end up in the oceans. And it’s not as if we are slowing down.  So far, plastic manufacturing has doubled every 15 years. And half of all the plastic manufactured becomes trash in less than a year, in spite of nearly ubiquitous recycling programs!  Why?   We’ll take a look at recycling in part 2 of “What Should I Do with My Yogurt Cup?”

References

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/01/26/our-oceans-a-plastic-soup/
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/great-pacific-garbage-patch.htm
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/07/plastic-produced-recycling-waste-ocean-trash-debris-environment/
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2016/05/kamilo-hawaiis-plastic-beach.html

Written by: Sandi Blanton

Photo by Algalita Marine Research Foundation from flikr

Photo by Catherine Sheila from Pexels

Recent news reports have called our attention to unacceptable levels of arsenic in bottled water sold in popular markets, and to PFAS contamination in bottled water sold in New England.

This seems like a really good time to outline exactly what the differences are between bottled water and tap water. 

Safety

Many people are under the impression that bottled water is safer than tap water. This feeling is perhaps bolstered by all those ads of high mountain meadows with clear sparkling springs. However, recent news reports highlight one of the most important drawbacks of drinking bottled water, namely that these products are often not as pure as advertised.  This stems from the fact that bottled water is not held to the same standards as tap water supplied by public water systems.  EPA requires that the water delivered to your tap be tested for over 80 potential contaminants and that remedial action must be taken whenever any of those contaminants exceed allowed levels. Further, your public water system must tell you where your water comes from and what is in it.  Bottled water on the other hand is not regulated by the EPA, but by the FDA, which does not have the same standards or the same regulatory authority.  It gets worse. The FDA has ruled that water that is bottled and sold within the same state is exempt from its rules.

Cost

The average cost of tap water across the United States is about $2.00 per thousand gallons. That works out to about a quarter of a cent per gallon!  A 1.5-liter bottle (about a quart) of imported water can cost up to $5, depending on where it’s purchased. Sure, you can get bottled water a lot cheaper than that, but even those 99-cent bottles of unknown origin are still 1600 times as expensive as tap water.

Americans spend about $12 million per year on bottled water, or an average of $250 per person. Think about what that money could do for community services across the nation.

The Environment

Two liters of water are used in the production of every liter of bottled water. So, every liter of bottled water you buy represents 3 liters of water, 2 of which are wasted.  And all those plastic bottles!  First, the resources to manufacture the bottles. The Pacific Institute has estimated that 17 million barrels of oil are needed to produce the plastic to make the 29 billion bottles used in the U.S. each year (enough oil to fuel 1,000,000 cars for a year). In fact, 90% of the cost of a bottle of water comes from making the plastic bottle itself. Add to that the oil needed to label, cool and ship it around (sometimes from the other side of the world).  It’s like filling every bottle ¼ full of oil.

Then there is the issue of disposing of the bottles. Sure, they are recyclable, but only 1 in 5 is actually recycled.  Many end up in landfills where they take 1,000 years to degrade and leach toxic additives such as phthalates into the groundwater.  But that’s not all.  About 10% of the bottles end up in the ocean, where they contribute to pollution and destroy sea life.

Convenience   

Many people cite the convenience of bottled water as a reason for buying it.  And we have all found ourselves in a situation (out walking or shopping or in an airport) where we need water and it’s easy to grab that bottle.  But convenience comes at a cost.  And that cost is a lot greater than the few dollars you pay for the bottle of water.  When you add in the cost to the environment, it’s huge. Many airports, universities, and other public places have installed filling stations where you can fill your own bottle. Empty bottles can be taken through security at airports and filled before boarding the plane.  So kick the plastic bottle habit, get yourself a good re-usable stainless steel or other BPA free water bottle, fill ‘er up with tap water and JUST DRINK IT!

Chemicals appear on and in many everyday items such as rugs, detergent, paper cups and shampoo. Additionally, with the wide spread use of fertilizers and insecticides, water systems are constantly fighting to prevent or reduce chemical contamination. While the contamination of our water ways by pharmaceuticals is making news headlines, there is another class of chemicals, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), that impact most of the United States population yet receive very little media attention. 

PFAS chemicals are used as nonstick compounds in a plethora of everyday items because they repel water and oil. These substances act as coatings to protect goods from stains, corrosion, and water. These chemicals were invented in the 1930’s and have been used commercially since the 1950’s. They were initially used in Teflon products, but there are now thousands of variants used in a wide variety of consumer products including carpets, clothing, non-stick pans, paints, food packaging, etc. PFAS chemicals are prevalent in the environment today because they are very stable chemicals and do not readily breakdown. 

There is growing scientific evidence and concern that long-term exposure to PFAS chemicals is dangerous, even in small amounts. What is even more alarming is the number of people that already have PFAS chemicals in their blood. Research has estimated that almost all people in the U.S. have some PFAS chemicals in their blood. The buildup of PFAS chemicals in bodies has been known since the 1970’s when manufacturing employees demanded testing. However, the health impacts were unknown at that time. Scientific research has now tied some PFAS chemicals to human illness. High levels of certain PFAS chemicals in the body are linked to high cholesterol levels, thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis and problems in pregnancy. 

The toxicity of PFAS can vary depending on the chemical make-up. The most commonly found and studied PFAS chemicals are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). U.S. manufacturers phased out PFOS in 2002 and PFOA in 2013. However, manufacturers continue production with other PFAS chemicals. Scientists are still learning about the health effects of exposure to these substances, and there is not enough known about other PFAS forms for them to be truly considered safe. Since manufacturers phased out PFOA and PFOS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has seen a decrease of these compounds in the human body. However, the chemicals do remain in the body years after exposure and remain in the environment even longer.  

The health impacts of PFAS on wildlife is not yet known, but high levels have been found in many species including fish and deer. Some states have issued “do not eat” advisories in areas where PFAS pollution is known to be high. Wildlife ingest PFAS chemicals in ways similar to humans. Materials with the chemicals on them are often disposed of in landfills and sewage treatment systems. Through these locations and storm water the chemicals can easily seep into soil, waterways, and groundwater. Some are even incinerated and can become a component of air pollution. Large amounts also enter the environment from fire-fighting foam and sprays used at military bases and airports.  

It seems likely that setting maximum levels for PFAS chemicals in drinking water nationwide is the only way to stop contamination and hold polluting parities responsible. The EPA currently has no Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for PFAS chemicals, although the agency did issue a health advisory for PFOA and PFOS. Most states are waiting for the EPA to create stricter regulations. However, Vermont, New Jersey, and New York are implementing extremely stringent standards, as low as an MCL of 10 parts per trillion for both PFOA and PFOS in New York. 

Due to public and scientific concern as well as upcoming regulation, the EPA released an action plan in February 2019 to help states, tribes and communities address PFAS chemicals. The goal of the plan is to provide both short-term solutions and long-term strategies. The agency plans to provide a multi-media, multi-program, national research and research communication plan to deal with the emerging environmental crisis. The EPA is also continuing to research PFAS chemicals to improve detection and measurement methods as well as better understand the transport of the chemicals and their potential toxicity. 

Additionally, the EPA is moving forward with the MCL process for PFOA and PFOS, and more PFAS chemicals may be regulated as more information is gathered and evaluated. The EPA has also designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, a move which will allow states to hold polluting parties responsible and accountable for this contamination. In addition, the agency may add PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory, thereby prohibiting certain PFAS chemicals. If PFAS chemicals are on the Toxics Release Inventory, then certain industrial sectors and federal facilities would have to report PFAS releases.  

Drinking water systems should begin planning how they will monitor and prevent PFAS contamination in their systems, because it is no longer a question of whether new regulations will be enacted but when.