The Cost Of Waiting: Utilities Face A Narrowing PFAS Compliance Window
By Kevin Westerling,
@KevinOnWater
For years, the water industry's PFAS conversation centered on monitoring, testing, and regulatory anticipation. Today, that phase is largely over.
Utilities now know where they stand, and many have discovered they have difficult decisions to make.
According to Amanda Canida, Senior Drinking Water Process Engineer and PFAS and Ozone Technology Leader at Black & Veatch, the industry's challenge has shifted from understanding the problem to implementing solutions under tight timelines and mounting financial pressure. While regulatory uncertainty continues to generate headlines, affordability has emerged as the more immediate concern.
Recent analysis of UCMR 5 data found that roughly 10% of public water systems exceeded proposed maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA or PFOS, not including systems that have already taken contaminated sources offline. Utilities are now evaluating treatment technologies, alternative water supplies, blending strategies, and wholesale purchasing arrangements as they work toward compliance.
"With the looming April 2029 deadline, water systems that have PFAS in excess of the MCLs that aren't currently in stages of detailed design or construction are going to have a really tough time complying with the MCL and meeting those compliance deadlines," Canida said.
Cost Overtakes Uncertainty
A year ago, regulatory uncertainty topped the list of PFAS concerns. Today, cost has taken its place.
Drawing on findings from Black & Veatch's annual water survey, Canida said 31% of respondents identified affordability as their biggest obstacle, compared with 25% who cited regulatory uncertainty.
The shift reflects a growing realization among utilities that, regardless of ongoing legal and regulatory debates, most systems affected by the rule already know they will need treatment for PFOA and PFOS.
Meanwhile, inflation, supply chain volatility, and strong demand for PFAS treatment equipment have driven project costs upward.
"Water systems that set their budget in 2023 or earlier, those budgets might be irrelevant now and they might have a hard time catching up," Canida said.
The financial consequences will likely reach customers. Only 24% of utilities surveyed for the Black & Veatch 2026 Water Report said they were confident they could meet regulatory obligations without substantial rate increases.
As Canida noted, "Utilities are operating as nonprofit organizations with very limited financial flexibility. As the regulatory requirements expand, the cost implications are real."
The Danger Of Waiting
Projects involving PFAS treatment can take years to move from evaluation and pilot testing to design and construction. Waiting for every regulatory question to be answered could leave utilities unable to meet compliance deadlines.
"You really can't wait for regulatory certainty in order to proceed," Canida said. "If you wait that long, you're not going to meet the compliance deadline."
She cited several common mistakes, including late coordination with state primacy agencies, misplaced reliance on potential exemptions, and insufficient access to specialized PFAS expertise.
Even some proactive utilities may struggle because of the time required to plan and construct treatment facilities. For those that delay, the risks increase significantly.
Thinking Beyond Compliance
Canida also emphasized that successful PFAS projects are not designed solely around today's regulations.
"A short-term compliance project would accomplish the goal of meeting whatever the current regulation is," she said. "But any good project or consultant will consider the long-term compliance strategy as well."
That means accounting for future contaminants, treatment upgrades, and evolving regulations while making today's investments.
Canida pointed to facility designs that preserve hydraulic flexibility, allowing additional treatment processes to be incorporated later without extensive reconstruction. She also highlighted ongoing research into future applications of anion exchange technology that could provide utilities with more options as PFAS regulations evolve.
In some cases, utilities are already making more expensive choices today to avoid stranded assets tomorrow. Canida described one utility that ultimately selected a more comprehensive treatment approach after evaluating broader long-term water supply and water quality goals, despite the significantly higher upfront cost.
Preparing For What's Ahead
Looking five years ahead, Canida believes utilities should spend less time predicting regulatory outcomes and more time understanding their own schedules.
That includes mapping project implementation timelines, evaluating sampling requirements, and identifying whether accelerated delivery methods or federal exemptions may be necessary to achieve compliance.
Just as important is maintaining public trust.
Utilities that seek additional compliance time may be required to engage in public notification and outreach efforts. How those conversations are handled can have lasting impacts on customer confidence.
Ultimately, Canida distilled the industry's challenge into a simple message.
"The three key takeaways from today's discussion are that cost is the biggest obstacle for compliance with the PFAS drinking water regulation, any good design will include considerations for adaptability, and utilities should not wait until there's regulatory certainty to act," she said. "If they do, they risk exceeding the compliance deadlines and damaging public confidence."