Federal scientists have documented per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called PFAS or “forever chemicals,” as an invisible toxin spreading through major waterways that supply drinking water to millions of Americans. Peer-reviewed studies from the U.S. Geological Survey trace these synthetic compounds from wastewater discharge points downstream through watersheds in the eastern and southwestern United States, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set the strictest-ever federal limits on PFAS in tap water at just 4 parts per trillion. The findings raise hard questions about whether current monitoring and permitting systems can keep pace with contamination that is invisible, persistent, and tied to routine urban and industrial activity.
Wastewater Plants Feed PFAS Into River Systems
The primary pathway for PFAS into American rivers is not a dramatic industrial spill but the steady, legal discharge of treated wastewater. A peer-reviewed basin-scale analysis published through the USGS Publications Warehouse used both measured concentrations and modeled predicted environmental concentrations to trace PFAS in the Potomac River watershed back to municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plant effluent. The study found that approximately 15% of stream reaches in the Potomac basin carry PFAS loads with wastewater treatment plant discharges identified as presumptive sources. That figure matters because the Potomac supplies drinking water to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and communities across Virginia and Maryland.
Separate field research in the Southwest tells a similar story across different geography. A USGS river-monitoring study covering the Rio Grande, Pecos, and San Juan rivers documented PFAS occurrence across major New Mexico rivers through repeated sampling from 2020 to 2024. Researchers detected 13 of 28 targeted PFAS in at least one sample and reported quantified downstream increases in concentrations tied to urban inputs and storm pulses. The pattern is consistent: PFAS levels climb as rivers pass through populated areas, and rainfall events flush additional contamination from surfaces and soils into waterways. Storm-driven spikes are especially concerning because they can temporarily overwhelm the dilution capacity of smaller tributaries, concentrating chemicals in reaches that feed downstream reservoirs.
Tap Water Contamination Reaches Nearly Half the Country
River contamination does not stay in rivers. A nationwide tap-water study released by the USGS estimates that at least 45% of U.S. tap water could contain one or more PFAS, based on testing for 32 individual compounds in both public and private supplies and national-scale modeling of exposure patterns. The national tap-water assessment offers the broadest picture yet of household exposure and suggests that people in urban areas and near potential PFAS sources face higher odds of contamination. Because the 32 compounds tested represent only a small subset of the thousands of PFAS variants in commerce, the authors note that their estimate likely understates the true extent of chemical presence in drinking water.
Detecting PFAS at the concentrations that matter for health requires specialized laboratory methods that many utilities are only now adopting. The EPA has validated Method 1633A for 40 PFAS, enabling measurement in wastewater, surface water, biosolids, and tissue at trace levels relevant for regulatory decisions. A companion approach, Method 1621, measures adsorbable organic fluorine as a broad screening tool to capture total fluorinated contamination rather than individual compounds. These tools are essential because PFAS are odorless, colorless, and undetectable without advanced chemistry, which is precisely why scientists describe them as an invisible threat. Communities that lack access to these testing capabilities may be drinking contaminated water without knowing it, particularly where local monitoring programs have not yet been updated to include PFAS.
Federal Limits Set a New Bar at 4 Parts Per Trillion
The EPA has responded to mounting evidence by establishing enforceable maximum contaminant levels for six PFAS under the federal drinking-water program. The new national standards set individual limits for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion, a threshold so low it is roughly equivalent to four drops of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool. Additional limits cover several other PFAS individually and in combination, reflecting concerns about cumulative exposure to multiple compounds at once. By translating toxicological findings into legally binding numbers, the rule gives regulators and water systems a clear benchmark for when treatment or alternative sources are required to protect public health.
Those numeric limits rest on detailed scientific evaluations of how PFAS affect the human body. For PFOS, EPA scientists compiled a comprehensive toxicity assessment that reviews hazard identification, dose–response relationships, reference doses, and cancer slope factors based on animal and human studies. A similar assessment exists for PFOA, and together they document links between long-term exposure and outcomes such as immune suppression, developmental effects, and certain cancers. The assessments underwent peer review and public comment, and their conclusions shaped the stringent 4-parts-per-trillion threshold. Yet setting a legal limit and actually meeting it are different challenges: many smaller water utilities have never tested for PFAS and will need to install granular activated carbon, ion exchange, or reverse osmosis systems to comply, while households on private wells fall outside the federal rule entirely and must rely on voluntary testing and treatment.
Biosolids and Permitting Gaps Widen the Problem
Drinking-water rules address one end of the contamination chain, but PFAS also cycle back into the environment through sewage sludge spread on farmland. When wastewater treatment plants remove solids from incoming sewage, PFAS that do not break down in the treatment process can accumulate in those residuals, which are then often applied to fields as fertilizer or soil amendments. Over time, the chemicals can leach from soils into groundwater or be washed into nearby streams during heavy rain, reintroducing PFAS into the same watersheds that receive treated effluent. Because these applications are permitted under existing biosolids regulations that were developed before PFAS emerged as a major concern, many farmers and rural communities may be unknowingly participating in a long-term recycling of persistent contaminants.
Regulators are beginning to acknowledge that traditional permitting frameworks were not designed for chemicals that resist degradation and move easily between water, soil, and biota. To help states address upstream sources before they reach drinking-water intakes, the EPA has issued guidance for reducing PFAS pollution through Clean Water Act permitting and related tools. The guidance encourages agencies to identify industrial users that send PFAS-laden waste to municipal plants, incorporate monitoring and source-reduction requirements into discharge permits, and consider best management practices for biosolids where PFAS are present. These steps are incremental rather than transformative, but they signal a shift toward treating PFAS as a lifecycle problem that spans manufacturing, product use, wastewater treatment, sludge management, and ultimately drinking-water protection.
Closing the Loop on an Invisible Contaminant
Taken together, the emerging research and new regulations portray a contamination cycle that is both diffuse and tightly interconnected. Wastewater plants discharge low but steady levels of PFAS into rivers, as documented in the Potomac and New Mexico basins, while storm events mobilize additional loads from urban landscapes. Those same rivers supply drinking-water systems that, according to national tap-water sampling, already deliver PFAS to a large share of American households. Biosolids applications can return the chemicals to fields and aquifers, creating feedback loops that complicate efforts to achieve lasting reductions. Because PFAS are designed to repel water and resist heat, they persist in each environmental compartment they enter, challenging the assumption that dilution and conventional treatment are enough to manage chemical risks.
Breaking that cycle will require aligning monitoring, permitting, and treatment with the realities revealed by federal science. Expanded use of advanced analytical methods can help utilities and regulators pinpoint where PFAS enter and move through watersheds, while stringent drinking-water standards set clear goals for what must be removed before water reaches the tap. At the same time, guidance for state permitting authorities underscores the importance of preventing pollution at its source, rather than relying solely on downstream treatment. Communities that draw from affected rivers or rely on private wells face difficult choices about investing in home filtration, pushing for local monitoring, or advocating for stronger upstream controls. As the science continues to evolve, the central lesson is already clear: managing PFAS as isolated point problems will not work in systems where rivers, treatment plants, fields, and faucets are all part of a single, circulating pathway.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
