Forever chemicals in drinking water are a national problem, but smaller communities face the biggest challenge

Minnesota lawmakers learn about technology to remove PFAS.
(Photo by Tad Johnson, Dakota Tribune)

The costs of removing forever chemicals, or PFAS, from municipal water could leave smaller communities behind. Most rural utilities don't have a PFAS contaminant filtration system, nor can they afford one, a 2025 study found. "Small, rural communities are the least likely to have the advanced systems in place," reports Brian Bienkowski for The New Lede.

The technology to remove the long-lasting, human-made "forever chemicals" found in many commercial and industrial products that have been linked to a range of health risks, including several types of cancer, fertility issues and developmental delays in children, can cost millions of dollars to purchase and install.

Even smaller cities are struggling to cover the costs to remove forever chemicals. In Apple Valley, Minnesota, some of the expenses utilities are paying to bring PFAS levels in their drinking water into compliance with Environmental Protection Agency rules will "likely hike water rates [customers pay] to fund a $100 million project to rid its wells of PFAS," reports Eva Herscowitz of the Minnesota Star Tribune.

To help buffer the costs, Apply Valley is asking its legislature to "include $40 million in the 2026 bonding bill for the project that would add membrane filter technology, which would increase the treatment plant’s capacity from 18 million gallons per day to 20 MGD," reports Tad Johnson of Thisweek Dakota County Tribune.

Like many rural areas with higher levels of PFAS contaminants, Apple Valley can't trace the source of its forever chemicals, which has allowed some communities to tap lawsuit dollars from companies such as 3M that were found responsible for tainting regional wells.

The Environmental Study Group found that "just 8% of U.S. water systems are equipped with filters that can remove PFAS. And 98% of systems that have PFAS detections do not have treatment targeting the chemicals."

Dan Hartnett, the chief policy officer at the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, cited a report that "estimated annual household cost to pay for the advanced treatment methods would average an additional $230 per household per year," Bienkowski writes. Hartnett added, “The numbers were significantly higher for the smallest water systems."

Pilot program that pays irrigating farmers for their water rights helps Nevada aquifers recover from overuse

Retiring groundwater rights helps depleted aquifers 
recover from overuse. (The Nature Conservancy map)

After years of battling water overuse by irrigating farmers, Nevada officials decided to use $25 million in federal funding to launch a pilot program that paid farmers for their water rights," reports Daniel Rothberg of The Daily Yonder. Once the state compensated irrigators for their groundwater rights, the state would retire the rights and no longer allow irrigation from that land, thereby conserving water.

Launched in 2023, the program has proved to be an effective way to protect some of the state's threatened aquifers. In fact, Nevada has used "federal funds to retire about 22,500 acre-feet of water, roughly the same amount of water Nevada was required to cut from its Colorado River allocation last year," Rothberg explains.

State water officials have been pleasantly surprised at how popular the pay-for-groundwater-rights option has become. Rothberg reports, "There was so much demand that two bills, passed unanimously by the Democratic-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo in 2025, allow for the expansion of the program."

After asking lots of questions, alfalfa farmer Denise Moyle decided to sell some of her groundwater rights to the state. Moyle shared the thought process she and many area farmers consider when debating groundwater rights sales: "If I sell a little bit of water and I pay off debt, do I have to farm as hard? Do I have to pump as hard? Do I have to go for three (alfalfa) cuttings? Can I just do two cuttings?"

Meanwhile, state water officials and conservationists are considering how to keep the program going, which could lean on donations and federal funding. "A donation could target a specific area or ecosystem in need of protection from groundwater overuse," Rothberg explains. "But state funding would help to raise matching federal dollars and maximize the program’s value."