A water utility can spend millions removing pollution it never created.
That uncomfortable reality sits at the center of the growing challenge posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called “forever chemicals.” Their resistance to heat, water, and grease made them useful in everything from industrial processes to firefighting foams. Those same properties also mean some PFAS can persist for long periods after entering the environment.
Now, as PFAS are detected in water supplies and drinking-water requirements evolve, another problem is surfacing: cleaning them up can be expensive.
And somebody has to pay.
The Problem Does Not End at the Tap
PFAS can turn up in drinking water, soil, air, and food, with potential sources ranging from industrial facilities and waste sites to PFAS-containing firefighting foams. Many PFAS break down very slowly, allowing them to persist and build up in people, animals, and the environment over time.
That persistence has raised concerns about human health. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), current scientific research suggests that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may be associated with reproductive effects, developmental effects in children, reduced immune response, increased cholesterol, and an increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers.
However, the science is still developing. Thousands of PFAS may have different toxicity levels, while much of the existing research focuses on a relatively small number of better-studied compounds. The EPA says research is continuing into how different PFAS, exposure levels, and long-term low-level exposure may affect human health.
As evidence develops, drinking-water authorities are responding with tighter monitoring and standards, particularly in the United States.
How Do You Catch a “Forever Chemical”?
Several technologies can remove PFAS from drinking water.
Granular activated carbon (GAC) provides a highly porous surface onto which PFAS can adsorb.
Ion-exchange resins use charged materials that attract and retain PFAS molecules.
Reverse osmosis and other high-pressure membranes physically separate contaminants from water and can be highly effective at removing PFAS.
The catch?
Removing PFAS from water does not necessarily destroy them. Treatment can instead concentrate the chemicals into spent carbon, resin, or membrane waste that then requires appropriate management.
So a utility may solve one water problem only to inherit a waste-disposal problem.
A $46 Million Lesson From North Carolina
Cape Fear, North Carolina, shows what PFAS treatment looks like beyond the laboratory.
After PFAS contamination was discovered in its source water in 2017, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) conducted extensive pilot testing at its Sweeney Water Treatment Plant. Granular activated carbon (GAC), reverse osmosis and ion-exchange media were evaluated, with GAC emerging as the preferred option.
Eight new GAC filters came online in October 2022, containing almost 3 million pounds of activated carbon. The system now treats water for a plant serving around 80% of CFPUA customers and can reduce PFAS to at or near non-detectable levels.
But the solution comes at a considerable cost. CFPUA awarded a $35.9 million construction contract for the project, while annual operating costs were estimated at $3.7 million for fiscal year 2023 and at least $5 million in subsequent years.
EPA researchers have continued studying the full-scale facility, including a long-term sampling programme launched in 2024 to understand how changing PFAS concentrations and water quality affect treatment performance.
The case highlights a difficult question. CFPUA is a public, non-profit entity funded by ratepayers, yet it says much of the PFAS in the Cape Fear originated from decades of upstream industrial releases. The utility has therefore pursued legal action seeking to recover PFAS-related costs and damages.
It turns an engineering success into a much bigger debate: if a water provider did not create the pollution, should its customers have to pay to remove it?
When Water Customers Become the Cleanup Crew
Water utilities are unusual participants in the PFAS story.
They generally did not manufacture PFAS. Yet once the chemicals reach their source water, utilities must still deliver water that meets applicable standards.
Governments are providing substantial financial assistance. In 2026, the EPA announced nearly $1 billion in additional grant funding for PFAS and other emerging contaminants, bringing funding made available through one program to $5 billion over five years.
Public funding can protect communities from sudden infrastructure costs, particularly smaller water systems.
But it also means taxpayers are helping finance the cleanup.
That has pushed another principle into the discussion: polluter pays.
Billions Are Moving Back Upstream
In the United States, PFOA and PFOS have been designated hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law, or CERCLA.
The designation makes CERCLA enforcement and cost-recovery tools available for PFOA and PFOS contamination, allowing authorities to pursue responsible parties for investigation and cleanup costs. EPA describes this as supporting CERCLA’s “Polluter Pays” principle.
Litigation has already shifted extraordinary sums toward water systems.
A nationwide settlement involving Chemours, DuPont and Corteva established a $1.185 billion fund addressing claims from a defined class of U.S. public water systems. The settlement became final in 2024 and was not an admission of liability or fault.
Separately, 3M’s public-water-system settlement provides for total payments of approximately $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion, also without an admission of liability or wrongdoing.
These are not simply enormous legal settlements. They signal a fundamental question about how societies deal with persistent pollutants.
Perhaps the Cheapest PFAS Treatment Happens Before the Water Plant
Better filters matter. So do stronger monitoring systems, treatment research and safer disposal technologies.
But PFAS presents a bigger lesson for water management.
Once a persistent chemical reaches a river, aquifer or reservoir, communities can face years of monitoring, treatment and waste management. The cost does not disappear – it simply moves between manufacturers, governments, utilities and consumers.
The most sustainable solution may therefore begin further upstream: preventing persistent contaminants from entering water sources wherever possible.
When pollution lasts for decades, the question is not simply how to remove it, but who should keep paying for its removal.
Read More on:
