The first record of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination of Hastings city water was recorded in 2004. Two decades later, due to updated regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the city of Hastings, like towns across the country, has been compelled to reduce PFAS contamination within city water to be under the new federal limits.
In those decades much has changed on how PFAS are used, viewed and understood. In 2010, the State of Minnesota sued 3M company for allegedly dumping Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), a chemical closely related to PFAS, in four sites in Washington County. In 2014 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), one of the most common PFAS, as a possible human carcinogen with that classification being upgraded to human carcinogen in 2023. In 2018, Minnesota’s case against 3M settled with the company paying $850 million to 14 communities in Washington County. In 2022 3M formally announced it would be ending the use of PFAS in its products by 2025. In April of this year, the EPA released its new maximum contaminant levels for six different PFAS compelling Hastings to draw up plans for three water treatment plants across the city.
Last week’s article examined Hastings PFAS story retrospectively. It examined how and why the city got to this point in regard to PFAS contamination of city water. This week we will be looking ahead to Hastings’ water treatment plan, where funding for those plans might come from, what those plans mean for the city, and what residents can do in the meantime.

Hastings Water Treatment Plan
The current plan to treat PFAS contamination in Hastings’ city water is to construct three water treatment plants across the city. While these plans are far from finalized, currently those plants are set to cost $68.9 million and will be located in the Hastings Industrial Park, in Lion’s Park, and in Wallin Park respectively. The treatment plants will use granular activated carbon (GAC) filters which pull PFAS out of water and must be replaced regularly. According to Hastings Public Works Director Ryan Stempski, that replacement period “can be anywhere from a year to four years depending on water usage.” The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost for these facilities is expected to be $800,000 to $1 million with those amounts increasing over time according to the 2023 Feasibility Report that outlines and recommends this plan.
According to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), granular activated carbon filters are often made of organic materials containing large amounts of carbon such as coal or coconut shells. These filters are heated, or activated, which increases the surface area of the carbon and traps chemicals within the filter. As more and more chemicals are trapped within the filter, it becomes less able to bind to and remove chemicals within the water, and therefore must be replaced.
GAC filters are specific in what they filter out of water. Finding the right filter to the contaminant and its concentration within city water is important to proper usage. According to Stempski, the filters proposed to be used in Hastings’ water treatment plants correspond with the contaminants and concentrations within city water.
This plan falls in line with the plans of surrounding communities including Woodbury and Cottage Grove, which are also constructing GAC water treatment plants.

Other options
Water treatment plants were not always the forgone conclusion for treating Hastings’ water. In August 2023, a Feasibility Report prepared by WSB Consulting was received by the city in order to “evaluate various water supply and treatment alternatives and provide recommendations on the most feasible and cost-effective option.” Other water treatment options included were blending wells to dilute PFAS concentration, constructing deeper wells, and purchasing treated water.
While the report details specifics of each option, the executive summary lays out why the city decided on its current water treatment plan: “Blending is not feasible based on the PFAS concentrations relative to forthcoming EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and MDH health-based guidance values. Constructing deeper Mt. Simon- Hinckley wells is not feasible because of a moratorium on the use of that aquifer and the Radium concentrations in its water. Purchasing treated water from St. Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) is not feasible due to the prohibitive distance and cost to connect, and loss of control over water quality and water rates. The only feasible option is to implement water treatment for the removal of PFAS.”
The report also discusses the possibility of constructing a single centralized water treatment plant, which would be more cost effective, but “based on the locations of the existing Hastings production wells and pressure zones, it is more feasible to construct water treatment plants at three different sites with each treating raw water from two to three wells.”

Water Treatment Plants timeline
The EPA’s Final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation stipulates that “public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS if monitoring shows drinking water levels exceed mandatory contaminant levels (MCLs).”
By the city’s own timeline of the construction of the three water treatment plants, the plants are estimated to be constructed by the end of 2027, although those plans are far from finalized. Bidding for the first water treatment plant, which will be located in the Hastings Industrial Park, is currently expected to begin in February 2025 with construction to begin in spring of that year.
It is worth noting that the construction of one water treatment plant will not provide clean water to any segment of the Hastings population via city water. Hastings’ city water is a system composed of six wells, two water towers, a water treatment plant, one ground storage tank, a booster station, and several valve systems. Adding treated water to that system will reduce PFAS concentration, but not extract it altogether. Only when all water entering that system is treated, will city water be below federal standards. In other words, Hastings’ water will not be below EPA guidelines until all the water treatment plants are constructed by the end of 2027 at the earliest.

Funding
The majority of the $68.9 million cost of Hastings water treatment plan comes from the construction of the three water treatment plants which will need to be paid in the next few years. Hastings is currently looking for sources of outside funding from earmarked federal funds to a state bonding bill to low interest loans and grants from the Minnesota Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWRF).
Hastings currently has two applications out to the DWRF for the first two water treatment plants. If accepted, the city would receive up to $3 million for each of those projects in low interest loans. The city has also reached out to federal representatives asking for $10 million for water treatment plants. According to City Administrator Dan Wietecha at the June 17 Preliminary Budget Meeting, the city had received “positive reception for our requests for federal funding.”
Because the Minnesota State legislative session ended May 20 without a bonding bill, Hastings currently has no funds incoming from the state. That being said, future legislative sessions could potentially provide the city with financial aid.
“I expect that is something we would be interested in,” said Wietecha.
Lacking any outside funds, the burden falls to the residents of Hastings to pay for the water treatment plants. At the June 17 budget meeting, Wietecha explained what water rates will rise if no outside funding is secured. Currently the average household in Hastings uses 7,500 gallons per month and pays $17.11. If funds were solely drawn from raising water rates for residents, the average household is expected to pay $59.64 per month by 2034 for the same amount of water, with most of that sharp increase “being frontloaded the first few years,” said Wietecha.

Joining the 3M Settlement
Lacking other sources of outside funding, many have turned to funding Hastings’ water treatment plants from the 3M settlement fund. That 2010 case brought by Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson focused on four dumping sites in Washington County and therefore the funds from the 2018 settlement have been and are going to communities in Washington County.
To date no other municipalities have entered that settlement though the language of the settlement leaves open the possibility that others may join. The payment of the settlement is meant to, “enhance the quality, quantity and sustainability of the drinking water in the East Metropolitan Area, which shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, the cities of Woodbury, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, Cottage Grove, St. Paul Park, Afton, and Newport and the townships of West Lakeland and Grey Cloud Island.”
When asked how other municipalities might be added to that settlement, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Communications Manager Mike Rafferty responded on behalf of the agency: “There is a continued need to support individual and community drinking water systems that need PFAS treatment beyond the settlement area. The communities that were included in the settlement are communities that are linked back to the four disposal sites where 3M disposed of PFAS in the East Metro. Where it can be documented, PFAS contamination link to any of these four disposal sites, that community would be eligible under the settlement. MPCA is investigating if a connection exists to any of these four sites.”
A current study by the MPCA is further examining 10 sites to attempt to determine the source of Hastings’ PFAS contamination. While the study is expected to be completed by the end of the summer, and could potentially identify the source of the PFAS contamination, its conclusion might simply be that “we need more studies,” said Wietecha.

What to do in the meantime
Given that the timeline of when Hastings’ water will be below the EPA’s maximum contaminant levels is at least three years, what can residents do in the meantime? First gauging levels of PFAS exposure is worth considering.
At the May 9 PFAS public meeting in Hastings, Kristine Klos, Supervisor of MDH health risk assessment unit spoke to the goal of reducing exposure to PFAS as whole. PFAS exposure comes from many different sources beyond contamination of drinking water, notable among them are household goods such non-stick cookware, microwavable popcorn, sticky notes and stain-resistant furniture and carpet. “If you’re feeling like you need to do something, reducing these exposures will reduce it a lot faster than drinking water. Again, it’s in your water, but it’s not as high as the exposure in your house,” said Klos.
Minnesota already has a law coming into effect in 2025 called Amara’s law designed to reduce PFAS in household goods. The law will prohibit products containing intentionally added PFAS including carpets, cleaning products, cookware and dental floss.
When it comes to water, several filters can be installed within homes that filter out PFAS. According to the EPA, certain activated carbon filters, ion exchange treatments, and high-pressure membranes such as nanofiltration and reverse osmosis are highly effective at removing PFAS from drinking water.
Klos also made a distinction about Hastings’ water contamination: “these are not disease effects, they are what you would call health factors, so these change first, and then you get disease.” PFAS exposure is a health factor which can influence health outcomes like the development of disease.

Conclusion
Questions linger about the future of Hastings’ water: where will the funds come from to construct water treatment plants and when will they be completed? What are the true health consequences of PFAS contamination in city water and beyond?
What is clear is that, like cities across the country, Hastings is working to fix a public health problem that it did not create. PFAS have been used in products and dumped into the environment for decades and the ramifications of that use are still being understood. While the solution might be years in the future, here in Hastings and beyond, we are far from taking the first step towards it.