With $40M price tag to treat ‘forever chemicals,’ Sweetwater Authority backs state bill for help

Sweetwater Authority officials have put their support behind a state bill that could help the agency with a multimillion dollar problem: treating a group of toxic chemicals known as PFAS in its water supply.

The bill from Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, would allow the State Water Resources Control Board to issue loans and grants to public water agencies for PFAS mitigation.

In 2024, Sweetwater Authority detected PFAS — specifically perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances — in its main reservoir and Perdue Treatment Plant in Spring Valley. Officials say the water is safe to drink, but the agency will be required to fix the problem by 2029 and estimates it will cost as much as $40 million.

Lawmakers last year approved a proposal from McNerney that would have established a statewide PFAS mitigation fund. But Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill, saying it lacked a clear source of funding.

What are PFAS?

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also called “forever chemicals,” are human-made compounds. 

They’re slow to break down and can be found in a variety of everyday items from nonstick cookware, food packaging, water-resistant clothing and hygiene products.

Experts have labeled some of PFAS as possible carcinogens. Scientific studies have linked the chemicals to reproductive issues and hormonal disruption. PFAS have been found in soil, drinking water, the air, and recently, produce in San Diego County.

During a meeting earlier this month, Sweetwater Authority said that the state should be obligated to help fund anti-PFAS projects.

“What’s the severity of this issue? If (the governor is) signing other bills to require state agencies to do certain tasks — remediate, report, come up with a strategy — if he’s signing that, why couldn’t he sign this?” said Ben Hueso, a former state senator and a consultant for Sweetwater Authority’s Legislation Committee.

This time, McNerney’s bill hopes to pull from two existing low-interest revolving funds that already support clean drinking water infrastructure but do not go toward PFAS treatment.

“The state was facing — probably still is — astronomical budget deficits,” Angel Marquez, Sweetwater Authority’s public affairs manager, said in an interview. “Maybe if it had a funding source, the governor would have signed it.”

McNerney said in a statement that while California has banned the use of PFAS from some consumer products, the chemicals have already contaminated a substantial portion of the state’s water. He said his bill “is a pragmatic approach to addressing California’s PFAS problem that will also help prevent water rate increases by making PFAS clean-up projects eligible to access more existing state funding.”

Sweetwater Authority, which serves more than 200,000 customers in National City, Bonita and parts of Chula Vista, started its own PFAS mitigation fund that is expected to collect $10 million over the next eight years. The agency spent about $1.5 million so far to hire two environmental engineering companies studying possible long-term treatment solutions.

The water agency has also been lobbying for funds from Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond that voters approved in 2024 for climate projects. About $610 million of that is allocated to address drinking water quality.

“We’re trying to do what we can here, you know what I mean? And they need to help us,” said Steve Castaneda, an agency board member for more than a decade.

The total projected cost for treatment at Sweetwater Authority alone is as much as $40 million. And other water agencies from the Bay Area to Southern California are detecting PFAS. The Orange County Water District received a $30 million grant last year and is poised to spend $1.8 billion over the next 30 years to address PFAS. 

Marquez said without outside funding, Sweetwater Authority’s customer rates could increase by 6-12%. 

“Our issue is not having to meet the regulatory requirement, it’s the fact that we’re being asked to do something without the money to do it,” he said. “And in the end, the people who get the most impacted by it are also the ones who benefit from it, which are the customers.”