U.S. Geological Survey scientist Kimberly Beisner retrieves a water quality sensor on the Rio Grande for a PFAS study in Albuquerque, New Mexico. (Courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey)
Legislation to eventually ban the sale of consumer goods containing so-called “forever chemicals,” and a second bill New Mexico officials hope will help advance cleanup, will be heard Saturday by the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee.
New Mexico Environment Department Secretary James Kenney supports both bills, and told Source that per-and-polyfluoroalkyl—aka PFAS—contamination is the “thing that keeps him up at night.”
PFAS has contaminated waters across New Mexico, with separate plumes surrounding army bases in Alamogordo and Clovis from use of firefighting foam, along with the Rio Grande below Albuquerque and an airport in southern Santa Fe, according to a 2024 U.S. Geological Survey report. Kenney said as climate change reduces how much water the state has, limiting pollution will be even more important.
New Mexico wildlife, plants around Holloman lake have highest PFAS contamination on record
PFAS are hard to break down with heat, water, sun exposure or other environmental factors. Their longevity in the environment and water means they can move up and down the food chain.
While still being studied, PFAS exposure has been linked to certain cancers, fertility issues, low birth weights or fetal development issues, hormonal imbalances and limiting vaccine effectiveness.
House Bill 212 aims to phase out products with intentionally added PFAS in New Mexico.The first phase would be for cookware, food packaging, firefighting foams, dental floss and “juvenile products,” followed by items such as cosmetics, period hygiene products, textiles, carpeting, furniture and ski wax. The Environmental Improvement Board would adopt rules for exceptions such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, electronics and cars. The bill includes civil fines for violations.
“This bill works to prevent future contamination,” Kenney said.
NMED said in an analysis of the bill that prevention over the next three years would cost $3.6 million, compared to the $2.7 to $18 million cost of destroying one pound of PFAS from water systems.
If approved, New Mexico would be the second state to enact a PFAS ban on consumer products, following Maine’s lead.
HB 212 also establishes a “PFAS producer responsibility organization” that would create a state-run program to ensure manufacturers, retailers and disposers share in limiting the environmental impacts of any products with PFAS, modeled on similar programs for disposing of tires or mattresses.
The bill has four Democratic sponsors on the House side: Las Cruces’ Rep. Joanne Ferrary; Albuquerque’s Dayn Hochman-Vigil and Debra Sariñana, and Kathleen Cates from Rio Rancho.
Ferrary, who chairs the interim committee studying Radioactive and Hazardous Waste materials, said PFAS contamination is already hurting New Mexicans, citing the euthanization of 3,600 dairy cows in Clovis.
“PFAS are used daily in household goods,” Ferrary said in a phone call with Source NM. “We feel like we have a responsibility to protect our citizens in New Mexico from these products.”
New Mexico to receive $18.9M in federal money for ‘forever chemical’ detection
House Bill 140, sponsored by Rep. Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos), doesn’t just focus on PFAS, but includes other hazardous chemicals, and redefines how substances meet the definition of “hazardous waste.” The bill also removes a section of the law that limits the Environmental Improvement Board’s power when federal officials have not listed a substance as hazardous waste.
New Mexico is engaged in two separate court battles with the U.S. Department of Defense over its actions and cleanup of the PFAS contamination. New Mexico joined multi-state litigation in the North Carolina courts against the military’s use of PFAS-laden aqueous film forming foam for fire fighting exercises;in the Denver-based federal courts, the U.S. government is suing New Mexico, claiming the state overreached in efforts to mandate cleanup of PFAS in and around military bases.
This bill is a direct response to the federal litigation, Kenney said.
“It will establish and reinforce our state authority to address PFAS, which is at the heart of the defense department’s challenges,” Kenney said. “They’re trying to erode the little authority we have.”
Kenney said he’s meeting with lawmakers on both appropriations committees to seek additional funding for addressing PFAS.
“The short answer is we want to do more,” Kenney said, though he noted that the department’s $8 million dollar request for PFAS is zeroed out in the proposed Legislative Finance Committee budget so “I don’t know that I’m funded to do more.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.