South Dakota tests for PFAS in rivers to identify, address potential contamination

While the State of Minnesota has passed sweeping legislation to restrict Per- and-polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, also called "forever chemicals"), South Dakota hasn't been as agressive.

Not that the pollutants aren't a concern here.

From South Dakota Searchlight.

SD tests for ‘forever chemicals’ in rivers to identify, address potential contamination
by Makenzie Huber

South Dakota’s state government is testing for “forever chemicals” in rivers across the state.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s, including in modern products such as nonstick cookware and water-resistant clothing, and don’t break down easily in the environment or in the human body. Research indicates PFAS exposure may be linked to negative developmental and reproductive effects, and an increased risk of some cancers.

Concerns about their prevalence in the environment and their impacts on human health have grown steadily in recent years, as they’ve been discovered in drinking water, fish and food packaging.

The Biden administration set first-ever limits on the chemicals in last year. EPA-mandated testing has found them in nearly half of Americans’ drinking water. Publicly available test results found a type of PFAS called perfluorooctane sulfonic acid at Mount Rushmore National Memorial as well as smaller amounts of other PFAS contaminants in Aberdeen, Harrisburg, Rapid Valley Sanitary District, Lincoln County Rural Water System and the Mni Wiconi water system. The Trump administration is planning to weaken drinking water limits on PFAS, according to Politico.

The state Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources began testing rivers this spring to “establish a baseline” for the presence of PFAS in surface waters across the state, according to Ben Koisti, spokesman for the department.

The department will use results to determine risks and help “identify and address potential contaminant sources,” Koisti said in an emailed statement.

Caption: A map shows PFAS testing sites managed by the state Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (Courtesy of SD DANR)

“The results can also be beneficial for water systems that use surface water as their water source,” Koisti said. “If PFAS contamination is identified in an area and at concentrations that pose a potential risk to a drinking water system, DANR will take action to further identify the source and mitigate the contamination to protect the impacted water supply.”

Testing is underway with additional sampling planned at the 30 testing sites this fall. Results will be posted on the department’s website. The East Dakota Water Development District tested 11 sites along the Big Sioux River in eastern South Dakota last year, finding the contaminants were most concentrated downstream of cities like Watertown and Sioux Falls in its preliminary data.

The department’s sampling sites were selected based on geographic distribution, population density, and whether the surface water contributes to a drinking water supply. There are 26 water systems in the state that rely on surface water for drinking water.

The project costs about $15,000 using federal EPA funds through the Public Water System Supervision grant.

Photo: The Big Sioux River flows under a Highway 34 bridge near Egan in southeastern South Dakota. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related posts

• Has South Dakota set a goal for reducing water pollution in the state’s rivers and streams?\
• State of South Dakota offering free PFAS cleanup to local fire departments, schools
• PFAS in South Dakota News: Brooking 3M plant contamination; firefighting foam related illnesses burden for Rushmore State veterans
• Proposed federal EPA PFAS regulation could cost South Dakota millions for testing, cleanup 
• Millions spent to keep manure out of Big Sioux River paying off, Big Sioux Stewardship Summit speaker says 
• South Dakota's Big Sioux River buffer program takes off with higher landowner payments
• Sioux Falls growth forces question: Can Smithfield and Big Sioux River co-exist? 
• South Dakota’s $3 million Big Sioux River cleanup project is slow to catch on 
• EPA data reveals South Dakota industrial chemical releases rise amid national decline
• Commentary: Mention of agricultural causes comes too late in SD water pollution report
• SD Searchlight: 80% of tested surface water in South Dakota fails to meet state standards
• Agency soup: MPCA, DNR, MDH & Ag release "Preventing fish kills in MN driftless region"
• Decline in freshwater mussels an indicator of poor river and stream health in South Dakota
•  More Minnesota lakes and rivers placed on impaired waters list
• WRAPS: erosion, stormwater & ag practices dirty water in Yellow Medicine River watershed

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6