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

Senate Bill 37’s (SB 37) purpose is to keep water in New Mexico’s waterways because many of the state’s waterways no longer qualify or meet the criteria for federal protection, such as many streams that do not flow year-round and many wetlands that do not have the required continuous surface connection to streams.

SB 37 will enhance the effectiveness of New Mexico’s water reserve by keeping water in New Mexico’s waterways. The reserve will be filled through new water projects, and existing water rights will be purchased. Water stored in the reserve will be accessed during the state’s most critical drought or other water shortages.

How does SB 37 address the Water Reserve Gap?

1) SB 37 creates a non-reverting fund for the Strategic Water Reserve. Allocated funds will never expire. For example, no matter how long it may take to complete a water rights transaction, such as a purchase or lease, the allocated funds will be available to support the transaction. Before SB 37, allocated funds could expire and be repurposed to the general fund before the execution of a transaction, which resulted in many missed opportunities for the state. Furthermore, the revised fund creates additional opportunities with readily available funds to assure water rights holders that they will be compensated for selling or leasing water to the state.

2) SB 37 includes aquifer recharge as a third primary way for the State of New Mexico to acquire water, acknowledging the relationship between surface water and groundwater. Utilizing the reserve for aquifer recharge, New Mexico can work towards developing and maintaining restorative stream flows and replenishing groundwater supplies simultaneously. The reserve will also support flexible, adaptive groundwater management and address groundwater depletion through continuous learning and adjustment.

3) SB 37 gives authority to the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) to prioritize certain water transactions with supplementary benefits, considering the bigger picture impacts of water management. At least one of the following criteria is required to prioritize a transaction: interstate compact compliance, benefit to threatened or endangered species, and aquifer recharge. An example of a supplementary benefit could be recreation and cultural significance.

In Conclusion

New Mexico is taking significant strides in shaping the state’s water future during the 2025 legislative session, aiming to minimize future risks. SB 37 has the potential to stimulate the economy’s growth with new water projects. Still, on the other hand, we should consider the potential financial costs of maintaining reserves and ensure that they do not become cost-prohibitive. The improvements that SB 37, SB 21/22, and HB 137 lay out as part of New Mexico’s 50-year Water Action Plan are critical to giving the state the control it requires over its water resources and allowing it to reach its full water management potential. SB 37

Source: SB 37 – STRATEGIC WATER RESERVE FUND

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

Featured Image by John Foxx from FreeImages

The bill designates a $75 million strategic water supply program focusing on the state’s most immediate water scarcity issues, wastewater management, and environmental protection. More specifically, SB 137 expands the states’ implementation of water management strategies to increase resiliency to water shortages, initiative-taking measures focusing on future freshwater resources like brackish water projects, and research on underground aquifers.

Key Areas of Focus

As increased temperatures and drought conditions in New Mexico become commonplace, HB 137’s primary focus is addressing the increasing water scarcity concerns. The newly established Strategic Water Supply Program Fund establishes two key areas of focus to increase resiliency and water availability to ensure the future of New Mexico’s water supply through:

1) Brackish Water Projects ($50 Million)

The Brackish Water Project investments will create more diverse water sources for the state that were not previously accessible without treatment and focus on treating and reusing water with high salinity levels. For example, these projects will focus on water treatment for drinking and irrigation applications and create opportunities for future economic development.

2) Underground Aquifer Research ($28.8 Million)

Investments in research and monitoring underground aquifers will help New Mexico better understand the state’s groundwater resources and identify opportunities to manage the existing critical resources effectively. The New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology will lead the effort to map and monitor the groundwater resources, collecting essential data and providing insights to support the establishment of long-term statewide water management procedures.

Prioritizing Public Health and the Environment

In addition to the proactive measures that HB 137 establishes, it is also important to note that provisions for reusing produced water from fracking are not a part of the bill’s final version. The decision to remove the provision is to protect public health and the environment, prioritizing the prevention of potential contamination from produced water for future generations and expanding New Mexico’s strategic water reserves. The change will reduce the potential risk of contamination of soil and water resources. However, it can limit the potential for reducing wastewater generated in the energy production sector and lowering overall energy costs.

Establishment of Fees on Produced Water Disposal:

Furthermore, SB 137 puts a new dedicated revenue generation model in place through a 3-cent fee for each barrel of produced water disposed of in New Mexico to account for the environmental considerations associated with produced water disposal. The revenue generated from the fee will fund water supply projects and management initiatives down the road.

In Conclusion  

The 2025 New Mexico Legislative Session outcomes have laid a solid foundation for the future of New Mexico’s water resources, starting with HB 137 as a crucial step in New Mexico’s plan for its water future to address water scarcity concerns. The removal of produced water reuse provisions potentially limits economic and water reuse opportunities; it shows a deep commitment to protecting overall public health and the environment. Furthermore, HB 137 is key to the broader water and environmental legislation passed in 2025; Senate Bill 21 creates and funds a surface water permitting program, and Senate Bill 37 expands the uses of the Strategic Water Reserve. These three bills come together to give New Mexico greater control over the future of its water resources.

Source: HB 137 – STRATEGIC WATER SUPPLY ACT

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

Featured Image by m0are 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.

State Revolving Funds are used to pay for improvements to drinking water and wastewater facilities to keep safe, healthy drinking water flowing into communities and treated wastewater flowing out. These kinds of improvements can be very costly, especially for small, resource-challenged communities. This project is examining potential efficiencies with the funds to make a great funding program even better. You can learn more about the State Revolving Fund project funded by Spring Point Partners by clicking here: https://swefc.unm.edu/home/spring-point-funding/. There is also an SRF Switchboard created as part of this project that can be accessed here: https://swefcsrfswitchboard.unm.edu/srf/.

I am a Master’s in Water Resources student at the University of New Mexico interested in water policy and management. I’m interested in water supply planning, particularly approaches that can improve rural communities’ ability to meet demands for water amid long-term drought. Before coming to UNM and the SW EFC, I worked in journalism and natural resources outreach.

I grew up in the Ozarks of Southern Missouri, where I wore light-up sneakers to help my parents chase coyotes away from the house. Every summer afternoon, my family would pile into a truck and go to the river to swim, fish and rock hunt. Those days at the river made me interested in the policies that impact our rivers.

After completing my bachelor’s in science and agricultural journalism at the University of Missouri, I moved to Western Colorado. Covering water issues as a journalist, I became more familiar with water scarcity and how communities in the Western United States are working to try to plan for a drier future. I soon started working for a water policy organization, where I wrote external communications and helped organize virtual events. At this organization, I saw the immense amount of money it takes to maintain and upgrade water infrastructure.  

That’s why I am excited to learn more about finance policies and programs that can make these kinds of improvements more attainable for our communities.

In a recent article published in the New York Times entitled  “Wall Street Eyes Billions in the Colorado’s Water”  (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/business/colorado-river-water-rights.html?smid=em-share)  Ben Ryder Howe focuses on the latest development in the long and complex story of water in the Southwestern United States, namely the increased interest in water rights in this region on the part of large investors. These investors, including Michael Burry (the subject of the movie The Big Short), see water as an undervalued commodity ripe for exploitation leading to big profits.  They are undoubtedly correct.  Water is undervalued, and in some cases, waste and poor management exacerbate the problems. Most consumer water rates are far below the true cost of providing water, and many farmers with water rights may have little or no incentive to conserve.  And with levels of drought not seen for over 1,000 years, water is quickly becoming the ultimate scarce resource.  But for those of us who live in the desert Southwest, it always has been scarce.  In New Mexico we say “agua es vida”  (water is life) because we know its value. But when Wall Street says value, they mean something else altogether.

Proponents of private investment argue that market forces are efficient. That may well be true. But what does “efficient” mean to them and efficient for whom?  The investment market–whether in water or anything else– is designed to provide maximum return on investment for the investors.  All other goals are secondary. If large investment firms own the water rights, they will distribute that commodity in the way that gives them the most return on their investment.  And that distribution might not match the needs of all stakeholders.  Investors will make money, but small communities and poor areas could be priced out of the market.  Indeed, many citizens in these communities already struggle to pay for the water they need.

But the big question is what are the policies that best protect the interests of all the stakeholders in water–which is, of course, everyone. Howe’s article focuses on the needs of urban centers versus agricultural needs.  But surely agricultural needs are the needs of all of us, and most critically those of us living in cities. If there is not enough water for farmers, food could become scarce.  If we solve that problem by importing food from other countries, we compound the climate change that is driving the droughts and water shortages.  It is easy to fall into the trap of pitting urban dwellers against rural dwellers, but when it comes to water, we all have the same needs. Water has the same importance for all of us.  It is that importance and those needs that the water investors seek to exploit. If you own something that everyone needs, you can name your price.  How should that price be determined? And by whom? 

Australia provides an example of what not to do.  They let the market forces have free rein, believing this to be the best way to infuse capital into a struggling industry.  But that policy has backfired, creating high prices and shortages similar to what happened with the energy market in the 1990s (remember Enron?).  The Australian government is now trying to rein in the market. But it is far easier to set those constraints in place from the beginning.

Negotiations are set to start this month on redefining the rules of the Colorado River Compact, an agreement that has governed the water of the Colorado river since 1922. Seven states are party to this compact (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California) as well as 29 Native American tribes and 2 Mexican states. The original compact allocated the water according to an agreement reached by all the parties. But, in the face of severe ongoing drought, as well as huge growth in large cities such as Las Vegas and Phoenix, there simply is not enough water to go around, and there is a need to update the thinking on how to manage the water we have, as well as prepare for future shortages and population growth.

But such negotiations are slow and ponderous; market forces are quick and agile.  It is too late to argue the merits of whether or not there will be big money investment in water.  That process has already begun.  What we can do now is support a process that imposes constraints on that investment and that considers the needs of all the water users in the Southwest, large and small.  Hopefully, that is what the Colorado River Compact negotiations will seek to do. 

Written by: Sandra Blanton

Contact us at: swefc@unm.edu

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

As we begin this month of July, those of us living in the Northern Hemisphere are settling down into our summer routines, enjoying the longer days and warmer temperatures. However, we must remember to drink enough water and to stay hydrated as the temperatures soar. With July also comes important information relating to our drinking water. In the United States, community drinking water suppliers are required by federal law to issue consumers an annual drinking water quality report. If you have ever pondered the question: What exactly is in my drinking water? this report should provide a good answer.

The Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), also referred to as the Drinking Water Quality Report, is an annual report published by July 1^st each year for all community water systems. The report contains water quality results from the previous year’s sampling and details the monitored and detected contaminants in your tap water. Below are a few tips on how to read and understand your report:

• The CCR year displayed in the title of your report will show the previous year: For example, the 2019 report with be titled “2018 CCR”. Don’t discard this report as an old report. This simply means that the data reported is from the previous year and is what is available currently.
• 
  
• The CCR will detail the source(s) of your drinking water and the treatment processes involved. Look out for information about a Source Water Assessment susceptibility rating if one has been conducted for your water sources. The CCR will inform you of how susceptible your water sources are to potential contamination, and how you can help safeguard your source water quality. You may request to review this report if one is available.


• Water quality data will be listed under each contaminant group—e.g. Inorganic contaminants, Radioactive contaminants and so forth—for ease of understanding. Remember, only detected contaminants will show up in the data tables even though more samples may have been collected. Make sure to refer to the units and definitions tables to better understand the values listed.


• Health effects relating to some of these contaminants may be listed, and a word of advice to susceptible populations will be given. Take a closer look at the values listed and note those regulated contaminants that exceed the mandated EPA standards (maximum contaminant levels – MCLs).


• Know how you can get involved in issues relating to your drinking water. Your supplier may post regular public meetings scheduled at your community; this is a good way to ensure that you the consumer are informed of any developments at your utility, e.g. ongoing projects. Other issues such as cross connection control and water conservation efforts may be highlighted to involve the public to be vigilant in controlling them.


• Any drinking water violations that were incurred are included in this report with the purpose of informing you, the consumer, of any compliance issues the system had with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Corrective actions undertaken by your utility will also be detailed.

If you have not seen your 2018 CCR, look out for this report on your utility’s website, enclosed with your monthly bill, or posted in public spaces. You may also request a copy from your utility office. There will be a person of contact on the CCR that will answer any further questions you may have relating to your drinking water.

Stay safe and hydrated this summer with a glass of tap water and with the confidence of knowing where your tap water comes from and what it contains.

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.