Renee Hoffman was never thrilled about the water quality at her house in Sleepy Bear Mobile Home Park on the outskirts of Steamboat Springs.
鈥淚t just didn鈥檛 taste great,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t had that kind of calcium buildup and stuff.鈥�
But one day in 2023, she got a letter from the mobile home park management that made her distrust her tap in a whole new way.
鈥淭his drinking water notice came through, telling us that there was PFAS in the water,鈥� she said.
Polyfluoroalkyl substances, or , are a class of compounds sometimes called 鈥渇orever chemicals鈥� because they don鈥檛 break down naturally in the environment.
鈥淧FAS are ubiquitous,鈥� said Zach Schafer, director for policy at the Environmental Protection Agency鈥檚 Office of Water. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e used in countless products that we use every day, whether it鈥檚 nonstick cookware or waterproof clothing. It鈥檚 used in stain resistant carpets. It's used in firefighting foam. And it's very useful, which is why it's been used since the 1940s.鈥�
But PFAS are also very . Exposure to even a small amount of some PFAS compounds, like Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS, can disrupt immune response, liver and thyroid function and cause heart disease and cancer. They can also affect developing fetuses.
鈥淲e're increasingly learning that some PFAS that we've studied a great deal have pretty serious adverse health effects at very, very low levels,鈥� Schafer said. 鈥淏ased on the latest science, there really is no safe level in drinking water.鈥�
The notice that Hoffman received included information from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment informing her that the shallow water well supplying her small neighborhood had tested positive for PFOA and PFOS. The letter included a warning about the potential health impacts of exposure.
鈥淚鈥� almost threw it out,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut I'm glad I opened it because I wouldn't have heard of it any other way.鈥�
The letter offered some recommendations for reducing exposure but stopped short of telling residents to stop drinking their tap water, 鈥渁s current health advisories are based on a lifetime of exposure.鈥�
That did little to reassure Hoffman that the water was safe for her family.
鈥淲e stopped giving it to our animals, stopped using it to cook noodles and things like that. We just stopped using it altogether,鈥� she said.
New drinking water standards
Last year, the EPA created new that limit PFOA and PFOS to less than 4 parts per trillion, which is the smallest concentration tests can reliably detect. But PFAS have already worked their way from industrial sources into drinking supplies across the country. The EPA estimates between 6% and 10% of the nation's utilities are contaminated. They have until 2029 to fix the problem.
鈥淲e are going to save thousands of lives, prevent tens of thousands of avoidable illnesses, and reduce the levels of PFAS in more than 100 million people's drinking water nationwide,鈥� Schafer said.
The new rules will require all water systems across the country to start monitoring PFAS by 2027. But some states are ahead of the curve. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment launched a free, voluntary testing program in 2020 and state officials report that so far, about two-thirds of the state鈥檚 water utilities have opted in.
Through that program, the state has already identified , in communities large and small, with a that needs to be addressed.
For the most part, the point of contamination remains a mystery and public health officials are more focused on removing the chemicals than discovering their source.
鈥淩arely can we trace the levels we detect in drinking water back to specific sources of PFAS contamination,鈥� a CDPHE representative wrote in an email. 鈥淥ur focus is to help our public water systems assess PFAS levels in their drinking water and reduce exposure.鈥�
The good news, according to Schafer, is that the technology to remove PFAS from drinking water already exists and is .
鈥淭hose include activated carbon ion exchange and reverse osmosis,鈥� he said.
But for some utilities, it might make more sense to reduce their reliance on or simply stop using a contaminated water source.
鈥淒epending on the specific characteristics, the size and the needs of a water system, they can choose how to meet the standard,鈥� Schafer said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 going to vary based on what PFAS are in their water, at what levels, and what the design of the water treatment system already is. So, it really isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all approach.鈥�
Costly fixes for small water systems
No matter the approach, dealing with PFAS contamination is bound to be a major undertaking. According to John DeGour, regulatory affairs specialist with the National Rural Water Association, smaller communities are likely to find it a struggle.
鈥淵ou have to pay for sampling, you have to install treatment if necessary or find a new source,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut if you鈥檙e a small system, you obviously have less resources to do that.鈥�
When PFAS turned up in one of the wells supplying rural Keenesburg, on Colorado鈥檚 Eastern Plains, public works director Mark Gray was surprised.
鈥淚 never anticipated us to have any PFAS in our wells,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t's the biggest problem we have. It's the only problem we have.鈥�
His first instinct was to look for ways to pay for potentially expensive fixes.
鈥淲e have made applications to every grant available -- grants for engineering, grants to build filtration. We are very actively looking at everything that鈥檚 available to us,鈥� Gray said.
Congress set aside in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 to address PFAS in drinking water. That includes $6 billion specifically for small and disadvantaged communities. According to the CDPHE, Colorado has already received $31 million out of a promised $189 million for PFAS remediation. But with a over how the new Trump administration plans to dole out federal funds, it鈥檚 suddenly unclear whether and when the balance will ever reach its intended users.
It鈥檚 still too soon to know which PFAS removal approach will be right for Keenesburg, or what the price tag will be. Grants should help cover initial costs but utilities will ultimately be on the hook for ongoing operations.
鈥淲e're being tasked from the EPA to try to come up with an almost impossible standard,鈥� Gray said. 鈥淵ou almost have to anticipate the increased cost in treatment.鈥�
Those increased costs will likely raise the rate that consumers pay for water. But utilities will have little choice.
鈥淲e're a small town and we're one of the few communities that provides its own water,鈥� Gray said. 鈥淲e want it to be safe.鈥�
As for the Sleepy Bear Mobile Home Park, the easiest solution just might be to abandon the neighborhood well altogether and tap into the municipal system in Steamboat Springs.
鈥淲e support that and we want to work with Sleepy Bear to make that happen,鈥� said Steamboat Springs 鈥妛ater distribution and collection manager Michelle Carr. 鈥淚t鈥檚 really just a matter of figuring out the logistics.鈥�
Those logistics would have to include extending the city water main westward, a project Carr said the city has already planned and budgeted for as they eye future developments on the city鈥檚 western edge. Carr said the city council may even subsidize a connection to the city water system for the mobile home park, 鈥渂ecause of their interest in supporting affordable and low-income housing.
However, according to Thomas Morgan, manager of KTH Enterprises, which owns Sleepy Bear Mobile Home Park, that could come at 鈥渟ignificant cost.鈥� Via text message, he wrote that he has been meeting with city officials, 鈥渢o see if costs and requirements could be lessened.鈥�
But from resident Renee Hoffman鈥檚 perspective, the park management needs to make clean water a priority, whether or not those subsidies come through.
鈥娾�漈here's a lot of young kids here,鈥� she said. 鈥淭o think that they were drinking that water from infancy -- what levels they might have in their bodies.鈥�
She just wants her family to be able to do normal things again, like brush their teeth and wash the dishes without worrying that the water could make them sick.
鈥淣obody wants their rent to be raised, right?鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut if we were to secure a better water source for our long-term health, I think you just have to weigh the benefits of it and ante up, I guess.鈥�
This story was produced by KUNC, in partnership with The Water Desk at the University of Colorado鈥檚 Center for Environmental Journalism.
