In the 2019 legal thriller Dark Waters, actor Mark Ruffalo portrays Robert Bilott, a real-life Cincinnati lawyer trying to wrap his non-scientific mind around the dangers of PFOA—a chemical compound used in the production of nonstick coatings like Teflon. By the late 1990s, Bilott is suspecting that this pollutant has seeped into the local water system and that it is the root cause behind a slew of birth defects and cancers ravaging a small West Virginia town where the chemical giant DuPont has a manufacturing plant. In one particularly poignant scene, Bilott asks a chemist friend what would happen if someone drank PFOA—and the chemist replies, “That’s like saying, ‘What if I swallowed a tire? … I don’t know.’”
Fast forward 25 years and thousands of lawsuits later, and the global scientific community now knows very well what happens when you “drink PFOA” or come into contact with other so-called PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances), more commonly known as “forever chemicals”—and it’s not good.
“People with chronic exposure to even trace levels of PFAS—via drinking water, clothing, makeup, sanitary products, food packaging, or even in the air—are at high risk for acquiring numerous health conditions including cancer, thyroid disease and liver damage,” Michelle Bellanca, CEO of Minneapolis-based Claros Technologies, told Observer. The advanced materials company recently secured $22 million in its latest funding round to scale its patented PFAS detection and destruction technology.
PFAS compounds are resistant to water, grease and heat and are widely used in coatings and adhesives. They have become essential and largely irreplaceable in major industries such as aerospace, automotive, electronics, textiles, construction and health care.
Claros helps manufacturers navigate a critical tradeoff: ensuring the essential use of PFAS in their production processes while responsibly treating and eliminating waste to prevent environmental harm. Last year, the company achieved a notable milestone by piloting a technology capable of eliminating 99.99 percent of PFAS in a continuous flow system within a commercial manufacturing setting.
“There are over 14,000 PFAS compounds out there, and right now, only six of them—PFOA being one of those six—are regulated by the EPA,” said Bellanca. “But it’s only a question of time before more of these substances become subject to increased regulation here in the U.S.”
Many major manufacturers anticipate evolving requirements and are turning to companies like Claros to deploy advanced technology that keeps them ahead of regulations while maintaining their ESG commitments. Across the U.S., private industry, regulators, and public water utilities face a pressing challenge: preventing manufacturing waste from re-entering the environment and contaminating water sources and the food supply.
“They have an economic and moral imperative to future-poof against what is becoming an immensely important issue,” Bellanca said.
The European Union is far ahead of the U.S. in addressing the regulation of PFAS. The E.U.’s approach not only encompasses a wider range of forever chemicals but also mandates stricter precautionary and preventive measures for private industries and public water utilities. (This includes plans to phase out all non-essential uses by 2030.)
While estimating the total costs associated with PFAS contamination is notoriously complex and hotly debated, there is no doubt that it comes with an astronomical price tag. For instance, ChemSec, a Swedish NGO that works with global manufacturers and policymakers to limit the use of toxic chemicals, estimates that the external costs of PFAS contamination—encompassing remediation, health treatments, and environmental monitoring— may be as high as $17.5 trillion annually on a global basis.
Experts estimate that in the U.S., the combined costs of addressing PFAS contamination—including environmental cleanup, lawsuits, mass tort litigation, and investments in new plants, systems and infrastructure—already exceed the trillion-dollar mark.
The next asbestos, lead and tobacco crises—all rolled into one
The scale of the PFAS problem is on par with or likely exceeds other major environmental health crises in recent history, such as asbestos poisoning, lead exposure and the negligence of the tobacco industry, according to Dr. David Dyjack, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based National Environmental Health Association, which represents over 7,000 environmental health professionals. “PFAS parallels other major health crises but has received far less attention,” Dyjack told Observer.
“Part of the problem is that it’s a chronic issue, developing over time with prolonged exposure. And unlike, say, a cigarette, with PFAS, we’re dealing with thousands of microscopic chemicals that most people can’t even pronounce,” Dyjack said. “And while nearly everyone has PFAS in their blood, there is a regressive aspect to the problem in that it disproportionately impacts low-income communities that tend to live near manufacturing plants and military bases where PFAS contamination has been most prevalent.”
However, unlike the asbestos problem, which was relatively straightforward—the construction industry simply stopped using asbestos and replaced it with safer alternatives offering similar fireproofing and insulation capabilities—there are no direct substitutes for many PFAS. As a result, outright banning PFAS writ large is often not a viable option in most cases.
According to Dyjack, widespread understanding of the immediacy of the PFAS crisis is close to reaching a tipping point. “PFAS now has a face—Amara Strande, specifically,” he said.
Like Erin Brockovich’s famous battle against corporate contamination—immortalized by Julia Roberts in the eponymous 2000 film—Amara Strande’s story highlights the devastating consequences of polluted water and the power of advocacy. Strande, a Minnesota native, became a victim of PFAS contamination near a 3M manufacturing plant, which had already prompted an $850 million settlement with the state in 2018. Diagnosed with PFAS-induced liver cancer, Strande turned her personal tragedy into a fight for change, delivering emotional testimony that galvanized lawmakers to take action.
In 2023, Minnesota honored her legacy by passing “Amara’s Law,” part of a landmark environmental omnibus bill. The law, effective Jan. 1 this year, bans the sale of products with intentionally added PFAS in 11 categories, including cookware, cosmetics and textiles, with broader restrictions planned by 2032. Strande’s courageous advocacy, like Brockovich’s, demonstrates how individual voices can inspire lasting reforms in environmental policy.
“Once a public health crisis has a face, things tend to come together quite expeditiously,” Dyjack said. “The passage of Minnesota’s Amara’s Law in 2023 was probably the turning point in terms of focusing the public’s attention towards this issue.”
“Amara’s Law” is just the beginning of what could become a multi-trillion-dollar crisis, according to Dr. Nhan Nguyen, a Houston-based mass-tort attorney specializing in PFAS claims. Speaking to Observer, Nguyen underscored the massive financial preparations being made, stating, “I know for a fact that insurance carriers and the insurance lobby are gearing up with hundreds of billions—up to a trillion dollars potentially—in money set aside to handle PFAS litigation over the coming decades.”
Nguyen’s law firm has cataloged more than 300,000 companies nationwide that could face PFAS-related lawsuits in the coming years, underscoring the immense legal exposure tied to these chemicals. “You’re looking at a situation where you’re going to create a whole new economy around PFAS cleanup and remediation,” he added, highlighting the sweeping economic implications of the litigation and environmental fallout.
For Nguyen, the trillion-dollar price tag represents his estimate of the damages associated with toxic tort litigation. This figure doesn’t even account for the additional hundreds of billions of dollars needed to upgrade industrial and manufacturing plants to manage PFAS water waste in compliance with the EPA’s 2024 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, which established the first-ever legally enforceable maximum contaminant levels for PFAS. Nor does it include the substantial capital upgrades required for publicly-owned treatment works—the government-owned facilities responsible for treating domestic, industrial, and commercial wastewater—to effectively detect and treat PFAS before it reenters the water system.
The high cost of clean drinking water
Few Americans realize that most public water utilities operate on the brink of insolvency, lacking the resources needed for critical upgrades to meet current EPA regulations. There are nearly 50,000 public water utilities across the country that serve as critical guardians of last resort against PFAS contamination in the drinking water, protecting tens of millions of U.S. households. Many of these utilities are small—many are still family-owned—which contributes to their financial struggles.
“Very few of these tiny water utilities will manage to be compliant with EPA regulations as it relates to PFAS,” Alex Loucopoulos, a partner at New York City-based Sciens Water, told Observer. Sciens Water is an investment firm whose portfolio includes Central States Water Resources, the seventh largest dedicated private water utility in the U.S., which has made a business of buying and bringing into compliance small and underfunded private water utilities across the country. “Including capital and operating expenditures, we estimate that water utilities will need something on the order of $40-50 billion in investment to become EPA-compliant over the next decade. Where will that money come from? In our view, the private sector has to play a role here.”
The American Water Works Association, a lobbying group representing U.S. water providers, suspects that, in light of the massive capital requirements to upgrade systems and provide more robust testing capacity, many local municipalities will end up suing manufacturers for damages (some already have filed suits)—but even that will only cover, at best, one-third of the costs required to comply with the EPA’s new standards.
Richard MacPherson, the President and CEO of Corsicana, Texas-based Birchtech, a publicly traded firm specializing in air and water pollution technology, asserts that the new PFAS regulations will inevitably force U.S. water utilities to raise fees.
“The EPA has given these water utilities up to five years to implement solutions targeting the EPA’s PFAS mandates, but we all know that’s not going to happen,” MacPherson said. “Many of these smaller to mid-sized utilities are severely under-capitalized, and the only way they can raise the funds needed to become compliant is by hiking rates.”
MacPherson is betting that many of these mid-sized utilities will turn to companies like his to find innovative ways to achieve compliance without incurring excessive costs. “Everyday consumers may not spend much time thinking about forever chemicals now, but when they find out that their water bill is going to jump significantly, I suspect familiarity with the term ‘PFAS’ will spike—as will people’s worries and concerns about the underlying problem,” he added.
“For as long as anyone can remember, most Americans have thought of water as relatively inexpensive—even in areas facing water scarcity—but that’s about to change,” said Bradley Honan, a political communications advisor to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, and then-Senator Hillary Clinton. “The public is largely unaware of how PFAS cleanup and the costly investments required from manufacturers and waste treatment facilities to prevent these chemicals from contaminating the water table will impact their monthly water bills. This represents one of the most significant, yet underappreciated, political challenges elected officials will face over the next few years.”
“There’s a pressing need for all stakeholders—policymakers, NGOs, and corporations alike—to better educate and prepare the public for the changes that lie ahead,” Honan added.
“Everyone is going to be on the hook—and not just because of the EPA,” said Claros’ Bellanca. “California, for instance, is outpacing federal regulations by enforcing stricter statewide PFAS regulations, including more aggressive maximum contaminant levels for drinking water, along with other pioneering initiatives.” (California is also the first state to ban the use of PFAS in food packaging and children’s products, and it requires cookware containing PFAS to carry warning labels.)
Many states are following California’s lead. To date, 30 states have already introduced their own PFAS regulations that go beyond federal policy. “California serves as a strong indicator of where all this is headed,” she added. “And the economic ripple effects from all this change will undoubtedly be profound.”
If California indeed becomes the lodestar for nationwide PFAS regulations and mandates, it could accelerate the multi-trillion-dollar forever chemical revolution already underfoot—one that will undoubtedly reshape industries, redefine priorities, and force society to reckon with the true cost of clean water.
<