Category: State Regulations

  • California Takes the Lead in Banning Toxic Chemicals from Water Infrastructure – Are Other States Following?

    California Takes the Lead in Banning Toxic Chemicals from Water Infrastructure – Are Other States Following?

    California Takes the Lead in Banning Toxic Chemicals from Water Infrastructure – Are Other States Following?

    Meta Description: California advances groundbreaking legislation to ban toxic “forever chemicals” from water systems and infrastructure. Learn how this affects water safety and what it means for your state.

    California just made a move that has the chemical industry seriously worried. The state is pushing through some of the most aggressive anti-toxic legislation in the country, targeting the “forever chemicals” that have been contaminating our water infrastructure for decades.

    While other states have been dragging their feet, California lawmakers are actually doing something about the PFAS chemicals that are showing up in drinking water systems across the nation. We’re talking about legislation that could fundamentally change how water infrastructure gets built and maintained – not just in California, but potentially nationwide.

    What’s got everyone’s attention is that California isn’t just nibbling around the edges of this problem. They’re going after the source: banning these toxic chemicals from the products and systems that deliver water to our homes.

    What California Is Actually Doing About Toxic Water Contamination

    Here’s the real deal: California has become the testing ground for what aggressive chemical regulation actually looks like.

    The state has already passed or is advancing several major pieces of legislation:

    Assembly Bill 794 – The drinking water protection act:

    • Sets enforceable state standards for PFAS in drinking water
    • Could be stricter than federal EPA limits
    • Protects Californians even if federal standards get rolled back
    • Covers 25 million residents who could be affected by PFAS contamination

    The broader chemical elimination strategy: California has systematically banned PFAS from:

    • Firefighting foams (already implemented)
    • Food packaging and containers
    • Textiles and clothing (starting 2025)
    • Household cleaning products
    • Cosmetics and personal care products
    • Some children’s products and furniture

    Why this matters for water infrastructure: Every ban on PFAS in consumer products means fewer of these chemicals eventually ending up in water treatment plants, pipes, and drinking water systems.

    The financial commitment:

    • California allocated $15 million for immediate PFAS remediation
    • Required quarterly testing within 5 miles of contamination sites
    • Mandated that manufacturers find safer alternatives

    How This Actually Affects Your Water

    The contamination cycle that California is trying to break:

    Here’s how these “forever chemicals” have been getting into our water systems for decades:

    The source problem:

    • PFAS chemicals are used in thousands of products
    • They don’t break down naturally – hence “forever chemicals”
    • They end up in wastewater treatment plants
    • Treatment plants can’t remove them effectively
    • They contaminate water supplies and infrastructure

    California’s approach: Instead of just trying to filter these chemicals out after they’re already in the water (expensive and often ineffective), California is going after them at the source.

    What this means practically:

    • Fewer PFAS chemicals entering the waste stream
    • Less contamination of water treatment infrastructure
    • Cleaner water coming out of your tap
    • Reduced long-term treatment costs

    The Health Stakes That Made California Act

    Why California lawmakers finally got serious about this:

    The state discovered that PFAS contamination affects the drinking water sources of 16 million Californians. As testing expands, that number is expected to go much higher.

    Health impacts driving the legislation:

    • PFAS are linked to kidney and testicular cancer
    • They cause liver damage and immune system problems
    • They affect fetal development and pregnancy outcomes
    • They’re found in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies
    • Even tiny amounts can cause health problems

    The financial health argument: California officials calculated that preventing PFAS contamination is cheaper than treating it after the fact. Water treatment systems to remove PFAS can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Real examples from California:

    • Orange County Water District spent $300 million just for initial treatment facilities
    • They estimate $1.2 billion in treatment costs over 30 years
    • A 10% rate increase is being considered to cover these costs

    Other States Are Watching – and Some Are Following

    California’s ripple effect:

    When California passes chemical regulations, it often forces change nationwide because of the state’s massive market size.

    States taking similar action:

    • New York has a PFAS ban in apparel awaiting the governor’s signature
    • Washington state is considering similar PFAS restrictions
    • At least 11 other states have set some form of PFAS drinking water limits
    • Maine has the most comprehensive PFAS ban, prohibiting them in all products by 2030

    The industry response: Major retailers are already adopting PFAS-free policies rather than maintain separate product lines for California. This means California’s standards often become de facto national standards.

    What’s different about California’s approach: Most states have focused on single-product bans. California is taking a comprehensive approach, targeting PFAS across multiple product categories simultaneously.

    The Pushback California Is Facing

    Who’s fighting these regulations:

    The chemical industry is spending millions lobbying against California’s PFAS legislation. They argue that:

    • Alternatives aren’t always available
    • Costs will be passed to consumers
    • Some PFAS uses are “essential” for safety

    The manufacturer response: Many companies are already reformulating products to comply with California’s timeline. 3M, one of the largest PFAS manufacturers, announced it’s phasing out all PFAS production by 2025.

    The federal tension: There’s uncertainty about federal PFAS regulations under the new administration. California’s legislation ensures state-level protection regardless of what happens federally.

    What This Means for Water Bills and Infrastructure

    The financial reality:

    California’s approach is expensive upfront but potentially cheaper long-term.

    Cost breakdowns:

    • Immediate remediation: $15 million state investment
    • Long-term treatment savings: Potentially billions in avoided cleanup costs
    • Consumer impact: Some rate increases likely but smaller than treatment-only approaches

    Infrastructure implications:

    • New construction will need to use PFAS-free materials
    • Existing systems will gradually become cleaner as PFAS sources are eliminated
    • Water treatment plants won’t need as many expensive PFAS removal systems

    What You Can Do While Your State Catches Up

    Don’t wait for legislation:

    California’s example shows what’s possible, but change is slow. Here’s what you can do now:

    Protect yourself:

    • Install water filters certified to remove PFAS (reverse osmosis or high-quality carbon filters)
    • Check if your water utility tests for PFAS and ask for recent results
    • Support local and state candidates who prioritize water safety

    Reduce PFAS in your home:

    • Choose PFAS-free products when possible
    • Avoid “stain-resistant” and “waterproof” products that often contain PFAS
    • Use stainless steel or cast iron cookware instead of nonstick

    Stay informed:

    • Follow what’s happening with PFAS legislation in your state
    • Join local environmental groups advocating for water safety
    • Contact your representatives about supporting California-style PFAS legislation

    💡 Take Action This Week:

    • Research your state’s PFAS policies: See how they compare to California’s approach
    • Test your water: Many areas have free or low-cost PFAS testing programs
    • Contact your representatives: Ask them to support comprehensive PFAS legislation
    • Switch products: Start choosing PFAS-free alternatives for everyday items

    The Bigger Picture

    California’s aggressive stance on PFAS represents a fundamentally different approach to chemical regulation. Instead of waiting for federal action or trying to clean up contamination after it happens, the state is preventing it at the source.

    This isn’t just about California – it’s about proving that comprehensive chemical regulation is possible and effective. Other states are watching to see if California’s approach works without destroying the economy or creating unintended consequences.

    So far, the early signs are positive. Companies are finding alternatives, costs aren’t skyrocketing, and water contamination is starting to decrease in areas where PFAS bans have been implemented.

    The question now is whether other states will follow California’s lead or wait for the federal government to act. Given the current political uncertainty around federal environmental regulations, state-level action might be the most reliable path forward.

    For people living outside California, the message is clear: you can’t wait for perfect federal solutions. Start protecting yourself now, and push your state to follow California’s example. Your water – and your health – are too important to leave to chance.

    Check Water quality in California now:

    California State

    Bakersfield

    Chula Vista

    Fresno

    Fremont

    Fontana

    Glendale

    Irvine

    Los Angeles

    Modesto

    Moreno Valley

    Oakland

    Oxnard

    Sacramento

    San Bernardino

    San Diego

    San Francisco

    San Jose

    Stockton

    Sources: California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Environmental Working Group California legislation database, Clean Water Action California reports, California Assembly Bill tracking

    Last Updated: June 30, 2025

    Check your water now!

    We have translated and compiled water reports on every state in the US, and covered over 100 cities. Find out how good your water is today!

    Check Your Water
    Boil Notice Tracker
    Glass of clean water

    Please read – our information

    The information presented on cleanairandwater.net is compiled from official water quality reports, trusted news sources, government websites, and public health resources. While we strive for accuracy and thoroughness in our presentations, we are not scientists, engineers, or qualified water quality professionals.


    Our mission is to present water quality information in an accessible, real-world format that helps people understand what’s in their water and make informed decisions about their health and safety. We believe that complex environmental information should be available to everyone in a format that’s easy to understand.


    We make every effort to ensure our content is current and accurate, but we cannot guarantee that all information is complete or error-free. This website should not replace official communications from your local water utility or health department. We always recommend consulting official sources for the most up-to-date information regarding your specific water system.


    Clean Air and Water is not liable for any unintentional errors, omissions, or outdated information. The content on this site is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice.

    Site Logo for menu
  • Utah Becomes First State to Ban Fluoride in Public Drinking Water Amid Health Concerns

    Utah Becomes First State to Ban Fluoride in Public Drinking Water Amid Health Concerns

    Utah just made history by becoming the first state to completely ban fluoride in public drinking water. Governor Spencer Cox signed legislation in March 2025 that prohibits any city or community from adding fluoride to their water systems, sparking a fierce debate about public health, government control, and individual choice.

    The ban takes effect May 7, 2025, despite strong opposition from dentists and health organizations who warn it will lead to more cavities, especially in children from low-income families.

    What Utah Actually Did

    House Bill 81, signed by Republican Governor Spencer Cox, makes it illegal for anyone to add fluoride to public water systems in Utah. The law goes further than any other state by completely removing local control – cities and communities can no longer choose for themselves whether to fluoridate their water.

    What the law says:

    • No person can add fluoride to public water systems
    • Local governments cannot require or permit fluoride addition
    • Pharmacists can still prescribe fluoride supplements
    • The ban applies statewide with no exceptions

    Why it’s unprecedented: While some cities and counties across the U.S. have stopped using fluoride, no state has ever imposed a complete ban that removes local decision-making authority.

    The Arguments on Both Sides

    This decision didn’t happen in a vacuum. It came after heated debate between public health advocates and those concerned about government overreach.

    Why Supporters Wanted the Ban

    Individual choice: Bill sponsor Rep. Stephanie Gricius (R-Eagle Mountain) said people shouldn’t be “medicated” by their government without consent. She acknowledged fluoride has benefits but argued it should be a personal decision.

    Cost concerns: Lawmakers said adding fluoride to water systems is too expensive for communities to maintain.

    Health worries: Some pointed to studies suggesting high fluoride exposure might be linked to lower IQ in children, though these studies mostly came from countries with much higher fluoride levels than used in U.S. water.

    Government control: Governor Cox compared fluoridation to being “medicated by the government” and said there should be a “really high bar” for such requirements.

    Why Opponents Fought Against It

    Proven public health tool: The CDC calls water fluoridation one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. Studies show it reduces tooth decay by about 25%.

    Helps disadvantaged communities: For low-income families who can’t afford regular dental care or fluoride supplements, fluoridated water may be their only source of cavity prevention.

    Safety record: The American Dental Association and other health organizations say fluoride at water system levels is safe and has been used successfully for over 75 years.

    Economic impact: The CDC estimates that fluoridated water saves $6.5 billion annually in dental treatment costs nationwide.

    What Utah’s Dentists Are Saying

    Utah’s dental community is not happy about this decision and they’re making their concerns very clear.

    Real-world experience: Dr. Rodney Thornell, president of the Utah Dental Association, practiced in Salt Lake City both before and after the city added fluoride to its water in 2003. He says the difference is dramatic – adult patients who grew up without fluoride continue to have lots of cavities, while younger patients who had fluoridated water get far fewer.

    Harsh criticism: The American Dental Association called the ban “wanton disregard for the oral health and well-being” of Utah residents and said it was based on “distorted pseudoscience.”

    Preparing for the worst: Free dental clinics are already preparing for their waiting lists to grow significantly. Salt Lake Donated Dental Services expects to see much more severe tooth decay in children within the next year.

    The sugar problem: Utah residents consume more candy and sugary drinks than the national average, making fluoride even more important for preventing cavities, according to dental professionals.

    Who Gets Hurt Most by This Decision

    The fluoride ban won’t affect everyone equally. Some groups face much higher risks:

    Low-income families:

    • Can’t afford regular dental checkups
    • May not be able to buy fluoride supplements
    • Rely on public water as their only source of cavity prevention
    • Face longer waits for dental treatment as demand increases

    Children:

    • Developing teeth need fluoride most
    • Kids in families without dental insurance are especially vulnerable
    • Cavities are already the most common chronic childhood disease

    Rural communities:

    • Often lack access to dental specialists
    • May have limited resources for alternative fluoride sources
    • Could see emergency room visits increase for dental problems

    The Health Debate: What Science Actually Says

    The fluoride controversy involves competing interpretations of scientific research:

    Evidence supporting fluoride safety:

    • Used in U.S. water systems for over 75 years with proven safety record
    • National Institutes of Health says it’s “virtually impossible” to get toxic doses from standard water fluoridation
    • Reduces tooth decay by 25% even in the era of fluoride toothpaste
    • Australia study found slightly higher IQ in kids who consistently drank fluoridated water

    Evidence raising concerns:

    • Federal judge ordered EPA in 2024 to regulate fluoride more strictly due to potential risks to children’s intellectual development
    • Some studies link high fluoride exposure to lower IQ, but mostly from countries with much higher levels than used in U.S.
    • Recent research suggested possible connections between fluoride and various health issues

    The key difference: Most concerning studies involved fluoride levels much higher than what’s added to U.S. drinking water.

    What This Means for Other States

    Utah’s decision is being watched closely across the country, and other states are considering similar measures:

    States considering fluoride restrictions:

    • Florida has a similar bill awaiting Governor DeSantis’ signature
    • Ohio and South Carolina are considering legislation
    • Montana has anti-fluoride bills in the works

    States that rejected restrictions:

    • New Hampshire, Tennessee, and North Dakota turned down fluoride bans
    • Kentucky’s measure to make fluoridation optional stalled

    Federal influence: Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has criticized fluoridation, applauded Utah’s decision and said he plans to recommend that the CDC stop promoting water fluoridation nationwide.

    What Happens Now in Utah

    The practical effects of this ban are already starting:

    Immediate changes:

    • Salt Lake City and other communities stopped adding fluoride to water on May 7
    • The process was simple – essentially just disconnecting fluoride tanks

    Alternative options:

    • Pharmacists can prescribe fluoride supplements (tablets or lozenges)
    • People can use fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash
    • Regular dental treatments provide professional fluoride application

    Challenges ahead:

    • Fluoride supplements require prescriptions and daily compliance
    • Low-income families may not be able to afford alternatives
    • Public health officials must find new ways to promote oral health

    What This Means for Your Water

    If you live outside Utah, this decision probably won’t directly affect your water supply. But it might influence the debate in your area.

    If you’re in Utah:

    • Your public water no longer contains added fluoride as of May 7, 2025
    • You’ll need to get fluoride from other sources (toothpaste, supplements, dental treatments)
    • Consider talking to your doctor or dentist about fluoride supplements, especially for children

    If you’re elsewhere:

    • Your water fluoridation status depends on local decisions
    • Contact your water utility to find out if your water contains fluoride
    • This controversy may come to your state legislature

    The Bigger Picture

    Utah’s fluoride ban represents a broader tension between individual choice and public health policy. It raises questions that go beyond just dental care:

    Individual rights vs. community health: Should governments make decisions about what goes in drinking water if it benefits public health?

    Trust in institutions: The decision reflects growing skepticism of government health recommendations, accelerated by COVID-19 pandemic debates.

    Health equity: Policies that let individuals choose may work well for affluent families but could hurt those without resources for alternatives.

    Science and politics: How should scientific evidence guide policy when studies can be interpreted different ways?

    Bottom Line: A Controversial First That Won’t Be the Last

    Utah’s fluoride ban marks a historic shift away from a public health practice that’s been in place for 75 years. Dental professionals warn it will lead to more tooth decay, especially among vulnerable populations, while supporters celebrate it as a victory for individual choice over government mandates.

    What’s certain:

    • Utah children and adults will likely see more cavities in coming years
    • The burden of preventing tooth decay shifts from public water systems to individual families
    • Other states are watching and may follow suit
    • This decision reflects broader debates about government health policies

    What’s uncertain:

    • How much tooth decay will actually increase
    • Whether alternatives like supplements can make up the difference
    • How this will affect national fluoridation policy
    • Whether other states will make similar decisions

    The reality: This ban doesn’t resolve the scientific debate about fluoride – it just shifts the responsibility for dental health from public policy to individual choice. Time will tell whether Utah’s experiment leads to better or worse health outcomes for its residents.

    For families in Utah, the immediate message is clear: if you want fluoride’s protective benefits, you’ll need to get them somewhere other than your tap water.

    What You Can Do

    • Check your water – Find out if your community uses fluoridated water
    • Talk to professionals – Discuss fluoride options with your dentist or doctor
    • Stay informed – Follow the debate as it spreads to other states
    • Make informed choices – Whether you support or oppose fluoridation, understand the evidence on both sides
    • CHECK THE STATUS OF YOUR WATER HERE

    Sources: Associated Press, American Dental Association, Utah Legislature, CDC, CNN, NPR | Last Updated: June 24, 2025

    Please read – our information

    The information presented on cleanairandwater.net is compiled from official water quality reports, trusted news sources, government websites, and public health resources. While we strive for accuracy and thoroughness in our presentations, we are not scientists, engineers, or qualified water quality professionals.


    Our mission is to present water quality information in an accessible, real-world format that helps people understand what’s in their water and make informed decisions about their health and safety. We believe that complex environmental information should be available to everyone in a format that’s easy to understand.


    We make every effort to ensure our content is current and accurate, but we cannot guarantee that all information is complete or error-free. This website should not replace official communications from your local water utility or health department. We always recommend consulting official sources for the most up-to-date information regarding your specific water system.


    Clean Air and Water is not liable for any unintentional errors, omissions, or outdated information. The content on this site is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice.

    Site Logo for menu

  • Alabama Invests Over $127 Million in PFAS Water Treatment Using Federal Infrastructure Funds

    Alabama Invests Over $127 Million in PFAS Water Treatment Using Federal Infrastructure Funds

    Alabama is spending big money to get forever chemicals out of your drinking water. The state just committed over $127 million in federal infrastructure funds to help water systems across Alabama remove toxic PFAS chemicals – the largest investment in forever chemical cleanup in the state’s history.

    Here’s where this money is going and what it means for your family’s water safety.

    Alabama’s Historic Investment in Clean Water

    The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) announced it’s providing more than $127 million to help water systems deal with PFAS contamination. This money comes from two major federal funding sources: the State Revolving Fund and President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

    The big picture:

    • Over $127 million specifically for PFAS treatment and removal
    • Funding helps both small rural communities and larger water systems
    • Special focus on disadvantaged communities that can’t afford cleanup on their own
    • Part of over $800 million in total water infrastructure investment across Alabama

    Why this matters: Alabama has significant PFAS contamination, especially in North Alabama where 3M manufactured these chemicals for decades in Decatur. This is the first time the state has had serious money to actually fix the problem.

    Where the Money Comes From

    This isn’t state tax money – it’s coming from Washington through two main programs:

    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL):

    • Passed in 2021 under President Biden
    • Largest federal investment in water infrastructure in American history
    • Alabama expects to receive $765 million over five years from this law
    • Includes special funding specifically for PFAS and other emerging contaminants

    State Revolving Fund (SRF):

    • Long-running federal-state partnership for water projects
    • Provides low-interest loans and grants to water systems
    • Has been helping Alabama communities for over 30 years
    • Now enhanced with extra federal money for PFAS cleanup

    The math: Alabama has received over $200 million in various federal water infrastructure funds since 2022, with the $127 million PFAS investment being the largest single commitment to forever chemical cleanup.

    Which Communities Are Getting Help

    The money is going to water systems across Alabama, with priority given to communities that need it most:

    Small and disadvantaged communities:

    • Rural areas that can’t afford expensive treatment systems
    • Communities in Alabama’s Black Belt with historic infrastructure problems
    • Water systems serving low-income populations

    Areas with known PFAS problems:

    • North Alabama, where 3M contaminated water supplies for decades
    • Communities near airports and military bases (common PFAS sources)
    • Water systems that have already detected forever chemicals

    Recent examples:

    • West Morgan East Lawrence Water Authority got help building a new treatment plant
    • Multiple Black Belt communities received grants (not loans) for water infrastructure
    • Small towns that couldn’t afford PFAS testing now getting financial assistance

    How PFAS Got into Alabama’s Water

    Forever chemicals didn’t just appear randomly in Alabama’s water supply. They got there through decades of industrial use:

    3M’s Decatur plant:

    • Made PFAS chemicals for over 40 years
    • Contaminated the Tennessee River and surrounding areas
    • Led to major water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan counties
    • Company now under state consent order for cleanup

    Other sources:

    • Military bases using PFAS-containing firefighting foam
    • Airports where foam was used for training
    • Industrial facilities across the state
    • Landfills where PFAS products were dumped

    The scope: Since 2020, ADEM has required drinking water systems to test for PFAS. The results showed contamination was more widespread than previously known.

    What This Money Actually Buys

    $127 million sounds like a lot, but PFAS treatment is expensive. Here’s what this investment will fund:

    Treatment technology:

    • Reverse osmosis systems that filter out PFAS
    • Activated carbon filters for smaller systems
    • Ion exchange systems for specific types of contamination
    • Regular monitoring and testing equipment

    Infrastructure upgrades:

    • New treatment plants for heavily contaminated systems
    • Upgrading existing plants to handle PFAS removal
    • Distribution system improvements
    • Emergency backup treatment systems

    Ongoing costs:

    • Regular PFAS testing and monitoring
    • Replacement of treatment filters and equipment
    • Technical assistance for small water systems
    • Training for water system operators

    Is Your Community Getting Money?

    If you live in Alabama and get your water from a public system, there’s a good chance your water company is eligible for this funding. Here’s how to find out:

    Check with your water company:

    • Ask if they’ve applied for PFAS treatment funding
    • Request recent PFAS test results for your water
    • Find out what treatment improvements are planned

    Look for signs your community might qualify:

    • Small or rural water system
    • Located in an economically disadvantaged area
    • Near known PFAS contamination sources
    • Already detected PFAS in water tests

    Contact ADEM directly:

    • Alabama Department of Environmental Management handles the funding
    • They can tell you if your water system has applied
    • Visit their website or call for more information

    What If You Have a Private Well?

    If you get your water from a private well, this state funding doesn’t help you directly. You’re responsible for your own testing and treatment.

    What you should do:

    • Test your well water for PFAS, especially if you live in North Alabama
    • Consider filtration systems if PFAS are found
    • Check with local health departments for testing assistance
    • Look into federal programs that might help individual well owners

    The reality: Private well owners are mostly on their own when it comes to PFAS contamination, which is why this public system funding is so important for most Alabamians.

    The Bigger Picture: Alabama’s Water Infrastructure Crisis

    The $127 million for PFAS is part of a much larger effort to fix Alabama’s aging water systems:

    Total state investment:

    • Over $800 million committed to water infrastructure improvements
    • $225 million from COVID relief funds for emergency projects
    • Hundreds of millions more in low-interest loans available

    The need:

    • Nearly 40% of Alabama’s water systems applied for emergency funding
    • Many systems haven’t been upgraded in 40-50 years
    • Rural and disadvantaged communities hit hardest by infrastructure problems

    Long-term impact: This federal investment is the biggest opportunity Alabama has ever had to fix its water infrastructure problems, including PFAS contamination.

    What Happens Next

    This money doesn’t fix everything overnight. PFAS cleanup is a long-term process:

    Timeline expectations:

    • Water systems must apply for and receive funding approval
    • Treatment system design and installation takes 1-3 years
    • Ongoing monitoring and maintenance continue indefinitely

    Regulatory changes:

    • EPA recently set drinking water standards for PFAS
    • Alabama water systems must comply by 2031 (recently extended from 2029)
    • More regulations likely coming for additional forever chemicals

    Continued investment:

    • More federal funding expected over the next several years
    • State will continue providing technical assistance
    • Private settlements (like 3M’s $12.5 billion) add to available resources

    Bottom Line: Alabama Gets Serious About Forever Chemicals

    Alabama’s $127 million investment in PFAS treatment represents the largest commitment ever made to removing forever chemicals from the state’s drinking water. Combined with federal infrastructure funds and private settlements, this is the best chance Alabama communities have ever had to clean up their water supply.

    The good news: Help is coming for communities that have been dealing with PFAS contamination, especially in North Alabama where the problem is worst.

    The reality: Even with this historic investment, cleanup will take years. Many water systems are just beginning to understand the scope of their PFAS problems.

    Your best protection: Don’t wait for your water system to finish upgrading. Find out what’s in your water now and consider your own filtration options while the larger cleanup efforts move forward.

    This investment shows Alabama is taking forever chemicals seriously. But protecting your family’s health today means staying informed about your local water quality and taking action if needed.

    Take Action Today

    • Contact your water company – Ask about PFAS testing results and treatment plans
    • Check ADEM’s website – See if your water system has received funding
    • Test your water – Especially important for private well owners in North Alabama
    • Consider filtration – Don’t wait for community-wide solutions
    • Check our report HERE

    Sources: Alabama Department of Environmental Management, EPA press releases, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding announcements | Last Updated: June 24, 2025

    Please read – our information

    The information presented on cleanairandwater.net is compiled from official water quality reports, trusted news sources, government websites, and public health resources. While we strive for accuracy and thoroughness in our presentations, we are not scientists, engineers, or qualified water quality professionals.


    Our mission is to present water quality information in an accessible, real-world format that helps people understand what’s in their water and make informed decisions about their health and safety. We believe that complex environmental information should be available to everyone in a format that’s easy to understand.


    We make every effort to ensure our content is current and accurate, but we cannot guarantee that all information is complete or error-free. This website should not replace official communications from your local water utility or health department. We always recommend consulting official sources for the most up-to-date information regarding your specific water system.


    Clean Air and Water is not liable for any unintentional errors, omissions, or outdated information. The content on this site is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice.

    Site Logo for menu