Fuquay-Varina’s Water Transfer Request Raises PFAS and Basin‑Management Concerns

Introduction

Fuquay-Varina’s recent request to withdraw 6.17 million gallons per day (MGD) from the Cape Fear River Basin and return treated effluent to the Neuse River Basin has sparked considerable debate among residents, environmental groups, and municipal planners. As a scientist who has studied PFAS fate in North Carolina’s surface waters for over a decade, I view this proposal not merely as a question of water quantity but as a potential conduit for PFAS redistribution across two of the state’s most monitored basins. In this editorial, I contextualize the request within the evolving PFAS regulatory landscape—particularly the EPA’s 2024 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) and North Carolina’s PFAS Action Plan—and outline the scientific and policy considerations that decision‑makers should weigh.

PFAS Legacy in the Cape Fear and Neuse Basins

The Cape Fear River Basin has been a focal point of PFAS research since the discovery of GenX and other per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances emanating from the Chemours Fayetteville Works facility in 2017. Subsequent monitoring by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and academic collaborators has documented PFAS concentrations ranging from low‑parts‑per‑trillion (ppt) in upstream reaches to tens of ppt near industrial outfalls, with PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and GenX frequently detected. While treatment upgrades at municipal plants have reduced loads, the basin remains a source of PFAS that can migrate downstream and infiltrate groundwater.

The Neuse River Basin, by contrast, has historically shown lower industrial PFAS inputs, yet recent statewide surveys have identified detectable PFAS in several tributaries, often linked to wastewater treatment plant effluents, biosolids application, and urban runoff. Importantly, the Neuse serves as a drinking‑water source for communities downstream of Raleigh, including parts of Wake and Johnston Counties. Transferring treated wastewater from the Cape Fear to the Neuse could therefore introduce PFAS signatures into a basin that presently lacks the same level of PFAS‑specific monitoring infrastructure.

Federal PFAS Drinking‑Water Standards

In April 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized PFAS NPDWRs that set enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS compounds: PFOA and PFOS at 4.0 ppt each, and PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX at 10.0 ppt each. These MCLs are legally binding for all public water systems serving more than 10,000 persons, and they require compliance monitoring, reporting, and, if necessary, treatment upgrades. The EPA also established non‑enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) of zero for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for the other four compounds, reflecting the agency’s health‑based benchmarks.

For Fuquay-Varina, which operates a water system serving roughly 30,000 residents, compliance with these MCLs will necessitate routine PFAS testing of both source water and finished drinking water. If the proposed Cape Fear intake draws water with PFAS concentrations near or above the MCLs, the town may need to invest in advanced treatment—such as granular activated carbon (GAC) or ion exchange—before distribution. Conversely, discharging treated effluent to the Neuse could increase PFAS loads in a basin where downstream utilities may not yet have implemented PFAS‑specific treatment, potentially complicating their own compliance pathways.

North Carolina’s PFAS Policy Framework

North Carolina has responded to PFAS challenges with a series of legislative and administrative measures. The 2021 PFAS Testing Act mandates annual PFAS sampling for all public water systems and requires public disclosure of results. The state’s PFAS Roadmap, updated in 2023, outlines a tiered approach: (1) source‑water protection, (2) treatment technology incentives, and (3) inter‑basin coordination to prevent PFAS translocation. Notably, the NCDEQ has initiated a basin‑wide PFAS monitoring network that includes both the Cape Fear and Neuse watersheds, though sampling frequency remains higher in the Cape Fear due to known industrial sources.

The state also administers the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), which can finance PFAS‑remediation projects, including advanced treatment at wastewater plants. Fuquay‑Varina’s proposal would trigger a review under the state’s Interbasin Transfer Act, which requires demonstration that the transfer will not degrade water quality in either basin. Given the PFAS considerations outlined above, any approval should be contingent upon a comprehensive PFAS mass‑balance analysis, baseline monitoring in both basins, and a mitigation plan that addresses potential increases in PFAS loading to the Neuse.

Municipal Water System Implications

From a practical standpoint, Fuquay‑Varina’s growth‑driven water demand is understandable; the town’s population is projected to exceed 45,000 by 2035, necessitating additional supply capacity. However, the engineering solution must align with the state’s broader water‑resource sustainability goals. Alternatives such as demand‑side management, water‑reuse initiatives, or development of regional wellfields with lower PFAS risk could reduce reliance on interbasin transfers and mitigate PFAS transfer concerns.

If the transfer proceeds, I recommend the following science‑based conditions:

1. Pre‑transfer PFAS characterization of the Cape Fear intake point, including quarterly sampling for the six EPA‑regulated PFAS and a broader suite of legacy and emerging compounds.
2. Real‑time monitoring of PFAS in the treated effluent prior to discharge into the Neuse, with trigger levels set at 50 % of the EPA MCLs to allow proactive treatment adjustments.
3. Funding commitment for PFAS‑targeted treatment upgrades at Fuquay‑Varina’s water plant (e.g., GAC contactors) and at the receiving wastewater facility in the Neuse basin, leveraging CWSRF or state grant programs.
4. Baseline and post‑transfer ecological assessments in the Neuse River, focusing on PFAS bioaccumulation in fish and invertebrates, to detect any adverse impacts early.
5. Public transparency through an online dashboard that displays PFAS monitoring results for both intake and discharge points, updated monthly.

Conclusion

Fuquay‑Varina’s water‑source request sits at the intersection of regional growth pressures and the intensifying scrutiny of PFAS contamination across North Carolina’s waterways. While securing additional supply is essential for the town’s future, the proposal must be evaluated through a rigorous PFAS lens—one that respects the EPA’s newly enforceable MCLs, aligns with NC’s PFAS Action Plan, and safeguards the water quality of both the Cape Fear and Neuse basins. By embedding robust monitoring, treatment, and transparency measures into the approval process, state regulators can accommodate municipal needs without compromising the hard‑won progress made in reducing PFAS exposure for North Carolinians. As we move forward, let data, not convenience, guide our water‑resource decisions.