Austin Fast,Cecilia GarzellaUSA TODAY
Show Caption
A USA TODAY analysis of new EPA data shows local officials most frequently blame airports; utilities, such as sewage treatment plants; and military bases as likely sources of toxic "forever chemicals" in their drinking water.
Thousands of public drinking water systems began sampling last year for PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, in the Environmental Protection Agency’s largest-ever effort to monitor their spread across the country.
As water utilities submit their results, the EPA also asks if they’re aware of any sources that may have polluted their drinking water.
Most systems marked “No” or “Don’t know” in the records the EPA released this month, but about 730 checked off boxes next to a list of two dozen potential sources.
The military is the most common culprit named among the 168 water systems that pointed to a PFAS source and also reported contamination above limits the EPA set earlier this year, USA TODAY's analysis found. Philadelphia, Cincinnati and Sacramento are among 53 such systems indicating military bases.
Water department officials in Cincinnati and another Ohio city, Dayton, point to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base as contributing to their PFAS problems. Dayton has even sued the federal government to recoup costs for treating its water, and that’s just one of thousands of cases now pending against PFAS manufacturers and polluters.
“Our ratepayers are paying $100 million (to remove PFAS), and Wright-Patterson is still allowed to put this stuff out,” said Jeff Swertfeger, Cincinnati’s water quality and treatment superintendent.
“Why are we putting this on the backs of ratepayers of water systems to do this? How come the individual polluters, if you will, why are they being allowed to put this stuff out even though it’s regulated in drinking water?” Swertfeger asked.
“We really wish that when the EPA first started regulating PFAS, they would have tried to get it out of the environment first rather than basically putting it on our hands to get rid of it.”
How widespread are PFAS in drinking water?
More than 1,000 drinking water systems have detected PFAS above limits the EPA set in April, according to USA TODAY’s analysis.
Almost 400 of these water systems – or about 11% of those with a full set of measurements – exceeded a PFAS limit multiple times, meaning they may need to take action to remove PFAS from the water they pump into customers’ homes.
PFAS are a family of nearly indestructible chemicals that build up in the environment and in human bodies, contributing to increased risk for certain cancers and other serious health problems.
MAP: Where water systems reported PFAS contamination
This map shows water systems included in the EPA’s PFAS testing records, as of July 11, 2024. It’s based on boundaries developed by SimpleLab, a water-testing company. Points represent systems where the exact boundaries are not available. Enter an address to locate the nearest water systems. Then click on a system to review its PFAS measurements.Don't see a map?Click here.
Since January 2023, thousands of drinking water systems have been testing for almost 30 types of the chemicals. The data released last week includes less than half the measurements the agency expects to collect through 2026, meaning the number of affected systems will only continue to grow.
In total, the EPA has estimated about 6,000 systems serving up to 100 million Americans eventually would need to do something – such as installing expensive filtration systems or removing wells from service – to keep in line with the new limits.
Where are the chemicals coming from?
Military bases topped the list of potential sources among drinking water systems that detected PFAS above the EPA’s new limits, but USA TODAY found airports closely followed with 50 systems. These include Fresno, California; Newport News, Virginia; and Greensboro, North Carolina.
When USA TODAY asked water utilities for proof backing up the potential sources they marked, some provided scientific studies and technical reports as evidence.
Newport News Waterworks, for example, pointed to a 2021 report that described the Richmond International Airport directly upstream, “including the Air National Guard facility/Superfund site,” as the primary source of its PFAS contamination.
In Greensboro, North Carolina, city leaders commissioned an investigative report that identified the industrial area around Piedmont Triad International Airport as the likely source of PFAS contamination, primarily from the use of firefighting foams, said Michael Borchers, director of Greensboro’s water resources department.
Others don’t have concrete evidence, but they reported possible sources “to the best of their ability and knowledge,” according to EPA spokesperson Angela Hackel.
Defense Department spokesman Robert Ditchey said he could not comment on the EPA’s data sources or analysis. But he did criticize the EPA’s wording, which asks systems about “potential current and/or historical sources of PFAS that may have impacted” their water.
The question, Ditchey wrote via email, “is slightly ambiguous and the responses to that specific question are open to interpretation.”
Military and civilian airfields have used PFAS-laden foams for decades to douse gasoline fires. The Defense Department has been transitioning about 1,500 facilities to fluorine-free alternatives and was supposed to stop using firefighting foams containing PFAS altogether by Oct. 1.
Earlier this month, however, the Defense Department submitted a waiver to delay that deadline to October 2025, with the possibility for another one-year extension after that.
Documents show the Pentagon has been investigating PFAS contamination at more than 700 active and former military bases around the world.
At Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, groundwater test results from June included samples as high as 7,400 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOS and 450 ppt for PFOA, two of the most common forever chemicals. The EPA has capped their presence in drinking water at 4 ppt.
One of Dayton’s water treatment plants directly downstream from the base detected PFOS above the limit every quarter last year, ranging from 6.2 to 10 ppt, according to EPA records.
“The city of Dayton has sued the Air Force over the PFAS contamination flowing from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Because the matter is in litigation we cannot comment further,” said Michael Powell, director of the city’s water department.
Some Air Force operations are within a mile of Dayton’s public wells, according to the pending lawsuit’s initial complaint, filed in May 2021. In the complaint, the city accuses the base of taking “no action to stop or even mitigate the ongoing migration of its PFAS contamination into the city’s wellfield and water supply,” even as “representatives for (the base) have known that the city relies on its sole-source aquifer for drinking water.”
The lawsuit says more than 2.5 million people in southwest Ohio rely on that aquifer for clean drinking water. Forever chemicals from the base appear to flow downstream to Cincinnati, where a treatment plant on the same river system detected PFOS above the limit twice last year, according to the EPA data.
“We know there are a couple of sources that are actively putting out PFAS that we suspect is getting into our aquifer,” said Swertfeger, the water quality superintendent in Cincinnati. Alongside Wright-Patterson, he named Rumpke Waste & Recycling, a waste management company that operates a local landfill.
“Runoff from some of their properties has high levels of PFAS on it,” Swertfeger said. “We believe that is impacting our wells as well.”
Rumpke spokesperson Amanda Pratt told USA TODAY the testing was “not close enough to Rumpke Sanitary Landfill to make a definitive assertion that our facility is contributing to higher levels in the waterway.” She pointed out that modern landfills like theirs have protective liners both below and above the garbage to direct any water into treatment systems.
Whatever the source may be, there’s no disputing that Cincinnati is spending more than $100 million to install an advanced granular activated carbon treatment system to remove PFAS that polluters have released into the environment.
“We didn't create this. Nothing we do is producing this,” Swertfeger said, adding that the new EPA regulations have essentially made it their job to clean it up. “I think there's a little bit of frustration on our part because the polluters aren't necessarily being held responsible.”
Dayton is not the only place trying to force polluters to cover costs for cleaning up the PFAS it has released into the environment. Last month, the state of New Mexico broadened its lawsuit against the Defense Department to recoup “all past and future clean-up costs” at three Air Force bases, a missile range and an Army base.
“Cannon Air Force Base and other DoD (Department of Defense) facilities have injured the most valuable natural resource on Earth – our water,” wrote New Mexico Office of Natural Resources Trustee Maggie Hart Stebbins in a news release. “Our residents suffer when they can’t use that groundwater, and it’s time for the federal government to compensate communities that are bearing the burden of its pollution.”
The federal court system sometimes lumps lawsuits involving environmental disputes and large numbers of people together in a process similar to class-action lawsuits. Courts around the country have transferred almost 10,000 cases seeking compensation for PFAS contamination from firefighting foams – including those in Dayton and New Mexico – into a single action in federal court in South Carolina.
In February, the federal government filed motions to dismiss over two dozen of these cases, claiming immunity from such lawsuits because using firefighting foam was not a mandate but left to the discretion of base leaders. Some bases are working through the EPA’s Superfund cleanup process, and the government argued it shouldn’t also be targeted by lawsuits.
Ditchey, the Defense Department spokesman, declined to comment on the pending litigation.
But he said the military is committed to transparency with communities dealing with PFAS pollution.
“DoD continues to prioritize actions to address cleanup at locations that have the highest, most critical risk to human health, and will continue to accelerate cleanup efforts nationwide,” Ditchey wrote.
He explained that the Air Force, Army and Navy regularly test drinking water for certain forever chemicals, both on base and off base, and publish some sample results online. They also provide bottled water, filtration systems and connections to municipal systems where PFOS and PFOA measure over 70 ppt. The new EPA limits, set in April, are 4 ppt.
“DoD’s actions are consistent with the EPA’s recommendations,” Ditchey wrote. “The department's priority is to quickly reduce significantly elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA in drinking water where DoD is the known source.”
Water utilities shun blame for PFAS, but some fear naming polluters
Water utility officials USA TODAY has interviewed over the past year have been quick to echo Swertfeger’s sentiment that they’re stuck paying to clean up polluters’ messes.
But when asked directly about their responses to the EPA questionnaire on PFAS sources, many demurred.
For example, Sacramento’s water utility indicated military bases and waste management facilities as possible sources. Defense Department records show ongoing PFAS investigations at a half-dozen Air Force and Army sites around the city.
“The city’s response to an EPA reporting requirement does not indicate a claim nor accusation,” wrote Mark Severeid, Sacramento’s water quality superintendent. “Military bases and waste management facilities are known sources of PFAS. As there are several in the immediate region, these two potential contaminant sources were marked on the checklist.”
The Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department marked airports as a possible source in May’s EPA data. When USA TODAY asked for further details, the utility’s spokesperson Jennifer Messemer-Skold said it was a mistake.
“Laboratory staff inadvertently selected ‘airport operations’ for the contributing cause of the PFAS found in the water,” Messemer-Skold wrote. “The staff member has since corrected the report by selecting ‘other’ as the potential source.”
Last week’s new EPA data show Miami-Dade County has updated its response to “Don’t know” for the question of whether officials were aware of any possible PFAS sources. But the cities of Hialeah and Miami Beach, which both purchase their drinking water from Miami-Dade’s utility, still indicate airports as a possible source of their PFAS contamination.
Upgrading Miami-Dade’s water treatment to remove PFAS could cost up to $4 billion, Messemer-Skold added, but she said they’re “not able to speculate on facilities or industries and their potential PFAS impact.”
Two of Veolia Water Delaware’s plants in Wilmington tested above the new limits for PFOA on four separate occasions last year, the EPA data show, and they’ve detected a handful of unregulated PFAS chemicals. The utility marked “military base” as a possible source of this contamination.
“We respectfully decline to comment on those auxiliary data fields,” said Adam Lisberg, senior vice president of communications in Veolia’s municipal water division.
In larger cities with many possible sources for PFAS, it can be tough to pinpoint exactly who’s to blame, said Jared Hayes, a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental watchdog. But he added some people will hesitate to point fingers at a military base serving as an economic and social hub for the community.
“Many people who live and work in these communities are veterans. They don't necessarily want to paint the DoD as the bad guy,” Hayes said. “It's like, ‘Well, I don't want to hold the base commanders responsible for these things because they didn't know.’ But the DoD knew. The Pentagon knew. That's the issue.”
Hayes points to a raft of military-commissioned reports as far back as 1973, when a small study showed rainbow trout exposed to firefighting foams all died within four days. In 1991, an Army Corps of Engineers report described the foam as a “hazardous material” that needed to be swapped out with safer alternatives.
USA TODAY also asked the Defense Department to respond to Hayes’ claim, but its spokesman did not provide a response by press time.
What’s the EPA’s next step?
This self-reported data about how PFAS are winding up in America’s drinking water will help the EPA “further understand potential correlations between known source contamination and treated drinking water quality,” according to EPA spokesperson Dominique Joseph.
She said this data helped EPA officials weigh the costs and benefits of limiting PFAS in drinking water before the agency approved those limits in April. It also helps them create resources, such as an online mapping tool presenting potential sources, that can “inform decisions that may be taken in communities to address PFAS contamination at the source.”
Last December, the EPA’s annual report on PFAS progress described holding polluters accountable and turning off the tap for industrial polluters as key priorities.
“Restricting point-source discharges from industrial facilities that use PFAS is a significant opportunity to safely remove PFAS pollution before it enters the environment or wastewater streams,” the report reads.
This localized source data from water utilities could help fill in gaps in achieving those goals, according to Hayes from the Environmental Working Group.
“Hopefully they can really help set those standards and take some of the burden off utilities,” Hayes said. “Let’s put that cost burden on the polluters, and make the polluters pay to clean up the mess.”
