New Jersey Assembly Bill A4762

New Jersey 2022-2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/11/22
• Refer: 10/11/22

Caption

Requires certain water purveyors to identify, and use, alternative water supply source when perfluoralkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances exceed maximum contaminant levels.

Impact

The enactment of A4762 is expected to significantly influence state laws surrounding water quality management and public health protections. Specifically, it will require water purveyors to take proactive measures when contamination is detected, thereby promoting rapid response strategies which could mitigate the potential health risks to consumers. Moreover, it underscores the importance of maintaining safe drinking water standards, aligning state regulations with scientific advancements regarding PFAS safety levels, thus ensuring that New Jersey residents are protected from toxic exposure from their drinking water.

Summary

Assembly Bill A4762 is a legislative measure aimed at enhancing public health and environmental safety in New Jersey by addressing the prevalence of perfluoralkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) found in drinking water sources. The bill mandates that public community water systems develop a comprehensive plan identifying alternative water supply sources to be utilized whenever the levels of PFAS exceed established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). This has been spurred by increasing concerns regarding the harmful health effects associated with these 'forever chemicals,' which have been detected in various consumer products and can remain persistent in the environment.

Contention

Despite the positive intentions behind A4762, the bill may face contention regarding the financial implications for water purveyors who need to implement such measures. Questions may arise around the feasibility of rapidly identifying alternative water sources and the cost of compliance with the new requirements. Additionally, some stakeholders could argue that the reactive nature of the legislation—acting only after contamination exceeds MCLs—may not sufficiently prevent potential health impacts. Witnesses from environmental advocacy groups may push for more stringent preemptive measures rather than responsive strategies alone.