Drinking Water Map Shows Cities With High Contamination Levels

A Newsweek map shows the cities with the most water systems in which PFAS levels in drinking water have measured above the proposed limit.

In spring, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced new federal limits on the “forever chemicals” which have been linked to serious health conditions such as cancer, liver and heart damage, fertility and developmental impacts on children.

New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania have the most highly contaminated drinking water systems, according to the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) interactive map. This is based on the maximum levels listed at a single point in time and does not take into account averages or whether a water system is being treated.

This month, Newsweek analysis determined there are 556 systems in New Jersey, 439 in Massachusetts, 263 in California, 202 in New Hampshire and 125 in Pennsylvania.

Now, Newsweek has found which cities are most likely to be served by the contaminated water systems by working out which counties have the most.

In Middlesex County in Massachusetts, where there are 115 water systems that have been registered by EWG as above the proposed PFAS limit, there are nine official cities: Cambridge, Everett, Lowell, Malden, Marlborough, Medford, Newton, Somerville and Waltham.

In New Hampshire’s Rockingham County, there are 108 systems above the limit, which serve, among other places, the city of Portsmouth. In New Jersey’s Morris County, the city of Dover is impacted by 106 systems above the limit.

Newsweek contacted water regulators for Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New Jersey for comment.

David G. Miller, deputy director of water treatment & supply for the City of Manchester, New Hampshire, which is in Hillsborough County, where there are 52 water systems measuring above the recommended PFAS levels, spoke with Newsweek about Portsmouth and the state in general.

“The sources of PFAS are many,” he said. “In Portsmouth, New Hampshire, PFAS was discovered at high levels in groundwater wells on and near the former Pease Air Force base…likely from firefighting foam discharge over many years.

“In Merrimack, New Hampshire, St. Gobain Performance Plastics was determined to be the source of local groundwater PFAS contamination, resulting from their atmospheric stack discharge. Many affected wells had to be abandoned and replaced with other sources of water. Just these two examples affected many water users…with many, many more examples across the country.”

EWG Deputy Director and Investigations and Senior Scientist David Andrews previously told Newsweek there is “a strong association with urban areas in particular” in terms of how PFAS contamination may be getting into people’s drinking water.

“It goes along with industrialization, the use of consumer and industrial products, but, in particular, some of the highest sources of contamination and have been firefighter training facilities or airports,” he said. “That’s because they were required to use a firefighting foam that included high levels of PFAS. So many airports and Department of Defense sites are known to be highly contaminated.

“And then industrial manufacturing facilities—the facilities which can be a direct release into water and air, but also landfilling of materials—have led to some very high levels.”

Water companies have five years to reduce their PFAS levels, which will most likely be done with filter installation. Although the federal government has made billions available to carry this out, there are concerns customers may be left footing the bill in some way.

Andrews stressed that states which have had to deal with PFAS-level problems before the new regulations, such as the ones mentioned above, will “in many ways have a head start” in dealing with it.

“That contamination has been identified a number of years before this regulation passed,” he said, “and in many cases, the water systems in those locations of the highest contamination have already taken action or reached settlements with some of the polluters to install filters over the next couple of years.

“I think it is important to note that the added cost of filtration is already being paid for by the public in terms of worse health outcomes. So the added cost of the filtration is expected to be less than the benefit.”