To borrow from Mitch McDeere, the protagonist in John Grisham’s The Firm, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) ridiculous new water standards is a topic that’s “not sexy, but it’s got teeth.” Sharp enough to cost NH taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
McDeere is talking about using mail fraud to bring down a corrupt law firm. NHDES is looking to set an unnecessarily strict PFOA/PFAS standard that would send a tidal wave of mandatory expenses crashing down on taxpayers.
The pockets of municipalities and residents all across the state would be picked for the cost required to meet emotionally motivated standards that have no basis on actual science unless it’s the “scientism” of Politics.
The allowable ‘dose’ for PFOA is significantly higher than what the water warriors or the regulators want. But a tighter standard provides opportunities for overreach that leads to fees and fines, which – not uncoincidentally – is how our NH Department of Environmental Services funds itself.
Drip. Drip. Drip.
You can hear the sound of your hard-earned dollars being wasted.
It’s an issue that has not gone unnoticed by local municipalities. AP has a pool report. “Towns raising concerns about New Hampshire PFAS standards.”
The state estimates it could cost as much as $190 million for communities to ensure their landfills as well as systems that treat wastewater and provide drinking water comply with the new standards. For some, that will be simply testing to confirm they meet standards. But for others who test above the standards, it could mean expensive upgrades, including building new treatment facilities in the coming years.
The State says it has $30 million (and possibly 6 million more) it could use to help. Let’s assume there’s no other good use for that money to address the ridiculously low water standard. From where does the additional $154 Million come? And since we know the 190 number is probably one-half to one-third the actual cost, what about the next 200-300 million?
That is a considerable redistribution of your income for an unrealistic guess that may be based entirely on an arbitrary decision by some environmentalist nut-jobs in Vermont whose standard NH chose to echo.
Never fear. New Hampshire, known for its sirens-blaring, ambulance-chasing lawsuits against big companies for one-time environmental paydays is going after eight of them.
Responding to the New Hampshire lawsuit, 3M said it “acted responsibly in connection with products containing PFAS” and would “vigorously defend its environmental stewardship.” DuPont said it doesn’t comment on pending litigation but would also defend its record.
Millions that will be borne in added costs these businesses will ultimately have to pass on their customers. That’s if NH wins the suits for which you are also paying.
Advocates for the insanely strict standard claim PFAS can cause harm at extremely low levels. That’s speculation, not just in the choice of words but the actual measurement. There’s no precise science on that and nothing approaching medical consensus.
The “serious contamination” in Merrimack has resulted in zero evidence of harm.
Merrimack isn’t showing any uptick in health problems after exposure because, unless the test results are incorrect, we’re not anywhere near (as in nowhere near) the concentrations required to be an actual health threat.
These companies have an obligation to be a good neighbor. No one disputes that. But redistributing hundreds of millions of tax dollars to meet some arbitrarily meaningless standard is a grotesque administrative act. And an expensive lesson in government abuse.
People who work with the stuff have much higher rates of exposure than anything in New Hampshire and no greater incidents of medical problems than the general public. Towns and residents need to ask why NHDES feels compelled to propose restrictions that, as far as we can tell, only do one thing. Waste a lot of money for no useful purpose.