The Communication Challenge: Telling Customers About PFAS in Their Water
For water utilities, the 2024 NPDWR compliance process involves not just technical treatment challenges but unprecedented public communication obligations. Annual Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) must disclose PFAS monitoring results; public notice requirements mandate communication when MCLs are exceeded; community meetings and media inquiries require informed, accurate spokespeople. Getting PFAS communication right—accurate, transparent, accessible, and neither alarmist nor dismissive—is one of the most significant operational challenges utilities face as the compliance deadline approaches in 2029.
EPA Public Notice Requirements Under the NPDWR
Under the 2024 NPDWR, public water systems that exceed PFAS MCLs must provide Tier 1 public notice (within 24 hours for acute violations) or Tier 2 notice (within 30 days for non-acute violations, applicable to PFAS). Notice must be provided to all customers, local governments, and news media using multiple channels: direct mailing or hand delivery to affected customers; posting in conspicuous public locations; notification to local news media; and posting on the utility’s website. Annual CCRs must report monitoring results for all regulated PFAS—including results below MCLs—using EPA’s standardized CCR format. Utilities serving systems with PFAS detections at any level above reporting limits must include results even when no MCL is exceeded.
Communication Strategies: Lessons from Early-Adopter Utilities
Utilities that discovered PFAS contamination before federal MCLs were established—including Portsmouth, NH (Pease contamination), Hoosick Falls, NY (Saint-Gobain facility), and North Carolinians in the Cape Fear watershed—provide communication lessons for utilities facing compliance notification for the first time. Key principles that emerged from these early cases: communicate proactively rather than reactively—communities that discovered contamination from media rather than utilities showed more severe trust damage; provide context for numbers (4 ppt is difficult to conceptualize—explaining it as “4 grains of sand in an Olympic swimming pool” improves understanding); offer immediate interim solutions (recommending certified point-of-use filters while treatment is installed maintains public confidence); and establish ongoing two-way communication channels (town halls, dedicated hotlines, FAQ updates) rather than one-time announcements.
The Social Media and Misinformation Challenge
PFAS communication in the social media era creates information management challenges that utilities’ traditional public information offices were not designed to handle. Misinformation about PFAS spreads rapidly on Facebook, TikTok, and NextDoor—including wildly exaggerated health claims, inaccurate comparisons to other contaminants, and politically motivated attacks on utilities and regulators. AWWA and WaterNow Alliance have developed social media response guides for utilities, recommending: monitoring social channels for misinformation in real time; responding quickly with accurate information and EPA/CDC source links; partnering with trusted local health departments and physicians as third-party validators; and using visual explainers (infographics, short videos) that are shareable on social platforms.
Point-of-Use Filtration as a Communication Tool
Many utilities have found that recommending and facilitating access to certified point-of-use PFAS filters—while communicating that long-term treatment solutions are underway—simultaneously reduces customer anxiety and maintains trust. Programs providing subsidized filter access to low-income customers in PFAS-impacted service areas have been implemented by utilities in Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Massachusetts, often using Lead Service Line Replacement and Disadvantaged Communities funds under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. For filter manufacturers and OEM suppliers, utility-mediated filter distribution represents a significant market channel—one where NSF/ANSI certification, documented performance, and supply reliability are the primary selection criteria.
Effective PFAS public communication is not merely a regulatory compliance requirement—it is a fundamental determinant of public trust in water infrastructure and, ultimately, in the institutions of public health and environmental governance.