Big check energy at the Roundhouse.

National and state environmental officials celebrated a $18.9 million federal grant for most of New Mexico’s water systems to use over the next two years to detect “forever chemicals,” in the state’s drinking water.

State officials say they hope to pull down a total of $47.2 million in the next five years in additional rounds of federal grants. The first two years will focus on detection and subsequent phases will address removal of Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS for short) in drinking water.

More than 496 systems serving 231,000 New Mexicans are eligible for the funding, state officials said.

A check of this size will help the state “fund its way” out of pollution, said New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney from the Roundhouse Rotunda.

“These forever chemicals will not be a forever legacy. We will address these chemicals and New Mexico will be the leader in the way we do that,” he said.

New Mexico context

As the nation grapples with the reality of these contaminants’ omnipresence – in rainwater, in our bodies, in animals –  New Mexico water systems are already struggling.

In 2021, the environment department found PFAS in at least 15 water systems in New Mexico, according to tests performed with federal assistance.

The most impacted communities are in Curry County and Otero County, according to that data. That’s also where PFAS plumes from firefighting foam infiltrated the groundwater for decades next to military bases. The state tested more than three dozen cities and water systems for 28 compounds. Only five compounds are subject to the proposed limits.

A Clovis dairy had to euthanize more than 3,600 cows after Cannon Air Force base contaminated water sources infiltrated wells on the dairy.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury described hearing about the moment, saying that the disaster made PFAS not just an economic issue, but a personal one for New Mexico.”

“It’s a big day for New Mexico. it’s a big day for families, it’s a big day for ranchers, and it’s a big day in our fight to really tackle the chemical contaminants that affect our communities,” Stansbury said.

Rebecca Roose, acting as the infrastructure czar in the governor’s office said addressing PFAS is part of a larger plan to address water scarcity in the arid state.

“When we talk about our water being polluted and contaminated and not safe, there’s few things we take more seriously than that,” Roose said. “Perhaps right up there with it is protecting the water so that it never becomes polluted, contaminated or unsafe, because there is not a drop of water to spare.”

The federal grant is funded from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, which contained at least $9 billion earmarked for addressing PFAS contamination.

This is the first grant of its kind in the region, said Earthea Nance, who oversees EPA Region 6, which includes Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

Nance said there are no set plans for enforcement for holding PFAS polluters accountable in Region 6, but said that could change with more information.

“I don’t want to say no, because we mean, tomorrow, we could start putting a plan together,” she said.

Nance said the EPA Region 6 office is relying on state officials to help determine how large the enforcement response will be.

“Because we’re giving this money to the state of (New) Mexico, some of that will fall on them in terms of assessing the situation so that we can then figure out how to identify enforcement issues,” Nance said.

How does the program work?

The grant has the unwieldy name; Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Program (EC-SDC). Name aside, it will allow for New Mexico’s environment leaders to spend up to $18.9 million over the next two years.

The program’s first phase will oversee water sampling, creating a statewide database and outreach to water systems, according to environment department officials.

Public water systems with 10,000 or fewer connections, or communities where the median household income falls between $56,828 – $75,770 are eligible to opt in, using this form.

“The great thing about this grant is we will be hiring and controlling a lot of the contract work and actually implementing it, which does take a little bit of a relief off the water systems,” said Kelsey Rader, the deputy division director for Water Protection with the state.

Rader said further federal money, two years from now, would offer more than testing, but also water treatment.

“That’s what’s really special about this grant is that it covers everything from the testing, from the design to the actual remediation, in paying for the necessary upgrades,” she said.

When asked if the $18.9 million is close to addressing the scope of PFAS in New Mexican’s water systems, Rader said the department doesn’t have a date set on when they’ll be able to test every New Mexico system.

“It’s difficult to say when that’s going to happen,” she said.

More work to do

Kenney said the state is still working to address current contamination, noting the environment department recently sent a letter asking for the federal government to commit to clean up water surrounding the Cannon Air Force base, not just beneath it.

A contentious court fight continues on, as the New Mexico Environment Department is still attempting to require the U.S. Air Force to follow state testing and treatment protocols over contamination at Cannon Air Force base. The case has stretched on for years in federal district court and now is in the 10th Circuit Appeals Courts.

Battle between New Mexico and US Air Force to track toxic chemicals drags on

The state is currently in mediation with the U.S. Air Force over the litigation and has been for over a year, said Bruce Baizel, the compliance and enforcement director for the environment department. The parties just extended that mediation period through late June.

The $18.9 million for clean-up would go farther, if people’s contact with PFAS in everyday items were reduced, said Kenney.

“In our legislative session, I’d like to see a bill introduced that bans PFAS but for essential uses, like medical devices,” he said. “But if given the choice of having a toxic chemical in your house that then becomes a toxic chemical in your body, I would choose not to have it in my house, or my body.”