Controlling Disinfection Byproducts at Maine Water’s
MIRROR LAKE Water Treatment Plant
Discover the Bingham & Taylor advantage: the largest and most diverse product line in the industry, all 100% proudly made in the USA, exceeding BABA and AIS requirements.
From durable cast iron curb and valve boxes to innovative Bison boxes, our solutions provide safe, secure access to underground water and sewer utilities. Sustainable production and recyclable materials reflect our dedication to the environment, while our designs prioritize worker safety during installation.
For 175 years, we’ve set the standard for quality, innovation, and integrity. Choose Bingham & Taylor—American craftsmanship at its finest.
Contact us today to learn more: sales@bandt-us.com | (540) 825-8334 | www.bandt-us.com
80 GHz level sensor with fixed cable connection (IP68)
- Accuracy and reliability meet affordability
- Easy Bluetooth setup via the VEGA Tools app for smart devices
- Optional remote display available
www.vega.com/vegapuls
CHAIR
Christopher Woodcock
Woodcock & Associates, Inc.
CHAIR-ELECT
Dave Fox Raftelis
PAST CHAIR
Chi Ho Sham
Independent Consultant
YOUNG PROFESSIONAL
Ryan Thomas Shea
Boston Water and Sewer Commission
SECTION DIRECTOR
Craig Douglas
Brunswick & Topsham Water District
ME DIRECTOR
Patsy Root
IDEXX Water
MA DIRECTOR
Peter Salvatore
Boston Water & Sewer Commission
NH DIRECTOR
Sarah Trejo
Aquarion Water Company
RI DIRECTOR
Carleigh Samson
Corona Environmental Consulting/University of Rhode Island
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Alane Boyd
Desert Rose Environmental
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
Chris Woodcock
President, Woodcock & Associates, Inc.
Sarah Trejo
Water Quality Compliance Coordinator, Aquarion Water Company
New England Section American Water Works Association c/o Cody Finan, AWWA
6666 W. Quincy Ave. Denver, CO 80235 USA
MESSAGE FROM THE SECTION CHAIR
Who Should Pay for Clean Water? The Unfair Burden on Public Water Supply Systems
Chris Woodcock, Section Chair
Access to clean and safe drinking water is a cornerstone of public health and well-being. Public water supply systems across the United States have historically taken on the immense responsibility of delivering this essential resource to communities. Yet, in recent years, these systems have faced escalating challenges due to pollution from external sources –pollutants that they did not create but are now legally and financially obligated to clean up. This reality has created an unjust burden on water utilities and, by extension, the consumers who rely on them.
Pollution from Others, Costs for Utilities
Water utilities today are grappling with the presence of harmful pollutants in their source waters, many of which are byproducts of industrial, agricultural, and even individual human activities. Substances like per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), pharmaceuticals, and other chemicals have made their way into water supplies, often undetected until they reach alarming levels.
PFAS, sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals,” are a prime example of this issue. These chemicals persist in the environment for decades, contaminating groundwater and surface water. They are in products we use every day, including Teflon and other nonstick coatings on pans and cookware; outdoor gear, jackets, and tents; stain-resistant treatments for carpets, upholstery, and clothing; grease-resistant coatings in fast food wrappers, pizza boxes, and microwave popcorn bags; waterproof mascaras, foundation, and long-lasting lipsticks; cleaning products; dental products; firefighting foam; electronics and appliances.
Similarly, pharmaceuticals that are improperly disposed of –flushed down toilets or washed down sinks – can enter water systems and create risks for aquatic life and human health. Wastewater treatment plants are not typically designed to remove these substances, meaning they often end up in the water supply. Water utilities are then left to bear the costs of mitigating these risks, despite having no role in introducing the contaminants into the environment.
Unfortunately, the amount that consumers pay for these products does NOT include the cost of cleaning up the contamination of
water supplies that they cause. The cost to water suppliers to assume this cleanup is neither simple nor cheap; the process requires advanced filtration technologies that can cost millions of dollars to implement and maintain.
Rising Costs Passed on to Consumers
The financial implications of cleaning up these pollutants are staggering. Public water systems must invest in costly treatment technologies, upgrade infrastructure, and conduct rigorous testing to meet ever-tightening regulatory standards. To cover these expenses, utilities are left with little choice but to raise water rates for consumers.
Understandably, rate increases often provoke frustration and backlash from the public. However, this anger is frequently misdirected at the water utilities, which are merely trying to comply with regulatory requirements and maintain public safety. The true culprits – polluters who introduce harmful substances into the environment – rarely bear the financial consequences of their actions. Instead, the burden is unfairly shifted to utilities and their customers.
Lead and Copper: A New Frontier of Responsibility
In addition to addressing emerging contaminants like PFAS and pharmaceuticals, water utilities are now being tasked with removing lead and copper from service lines and indoor plumbing. Lead and copper contamination has long been recognized as a significant health risk, particularly for children, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable to the neurotoxic effects of lead.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) has taken a position on this issue, not just acknowledging, but advocating the importance of reducing lead and copper exposure while also advocating for equitable solutions to achieve this goal. Replacing lead service lines and addressing indoor plumbing issues is a monumental undertaking, one that requires significant financial resources. Yet, much like with other pollutants, water utilities are expected to shoulder the bulk of the responsibility.
“WATER UTILITIES TODAY ARE GRAPPLING WITH THE PRESENCE OF HARMFUL POLLUTANTS IN THEIR SOURCE WATERS, MANY OF WHICH ARE BYPRODUCTS OF INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL, AND EVEN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN ACTIVITIES.”
Who Should Be Responsible?
The current system of accountability for water contamination is fundamentally flawed. Polluters often escape liability, leaving water utilities to clean up the mess. This system not only strains the financial capacity of utilities but also undermines the principle of environmental justice. It is patently unfair to ask ratepayers to cover the costs of pollution they did not cause.
To address this imbalance, a multi-faceted approach is needed:
1. Polluter Accountability: Companies and industries that introduce harmful substances into the environment should be held financially responsible for their cleanup. Stronger enforcement of “polluter pays” principles could deter future contamination and ensure that those responsible contribute to remediation efforts.
2. Federal and State Funding: Governments must step up to provide financial assistance to water utilities. Programs like the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and other grant initiatives should be expanded to help cover the costs of advanced treatment technologies and infrastructure upgrades.
3. Public Awareness and Advocacy: Consumers need to understand the root causes of rate increases and advocate for
policies that hold polluters accountable. Transparency from water utilities about the costs and challenges they face can help build public support for necessary reforms.
The Bigger Picture
Clean water is a public good, essential for life, and the foundation of a healthy society. Yet, the growing cost of ensuring this resource remains safe is threatening the sustainability of public water systems. If current trends continue, we risk not only financial strain on utilities and their customers but also potential inequities in access to clean water for marginalized communities.
The time has come for a paradigm shift in how we address water pollution. Polluters must be held accountable, and governments must provide adequate support to water utilities. Only by sharing the burden equitably can we ensure that clean water remains accessible and affordable for all.
In the end, the question is not whether we can afford to address these challenges but whether we can afford not to. The stakes are too high to ignore. Public water supply systems are doing their part to safeguard our health and environment. It’s time for the rest of society to do theirs.
MESSAGE FROM THE AWWA DIRECTOR
AWWA Winter Board Meeting Update
Craig Douglas, New England Section Director
The AWWA Winter Board meeting was held over three days January 23-25 in Hilton Head, South Carolina. It was far from a business-as-usual meeting as winter storm ‘Enzo’ hit the south, with some areas getting 10 inches of snow. The four inches of snow in the region closed the Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport from Tuesday to Friday and the airport in Atlanta (an additional three-and-ahalf-hour drive away – in good weather) experienced significant delays and cancellations. Subsequently, the meeting was moved to a fully hybrid format with abbreviated agendas, with 40 board members, guests, and staff attending in person and another 50 attending remotely, including the CEO, David LaFrance, and AWWA’s President, Cheryl Porter.
The Section’s revised By-Laws were approved by the Executive Committee without comment, and by the time you read this, the membership will be voting or will have voted on them. AWWA’s finances were strong for 2024. ACE24 exceeded its revenue projections by almost $1 million and many of the remaining budget categories like specialty conferences, travel, publication, and advertising revenues were solid as AWWA established a ‘new normal’ post-pandemic. Salaries and benefits are expected to come in $1 million over budget due to year-end bonus accrual and large PTO payouts for several retiring employees this year.
Forecast Update (actuals plus forecast)
Overall membership across AWWA has been down over the past 12 months. Data was only presented in slides and not in the Board packet, but the association is below the 50,000-person mark. CEO David LaFrance cited the halting of free memberships and other pressures. It looked like overall membership was about 49,300 (down almost 1,000), but again it was shown on slides, not in the Board members’ packets. There are still difficulties getting the new software to perform as desired.
As reported by the section and AWWA email updates, elections were held for Director at Large, Vice President, and President-Elect positions. These positions along with the Treasurer (when their term comes up) are selected by the Board members. Those winning seats can be found at https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/awwaboard-of-directors-selects-brent-tippey-as-next-president-elect.
MESSAG E FROM THE EDITOR
The Effects of Great Water Quality on Curling
Sarah Trejo, Editor
As I write this column, almost the entirety of New England is under varying levels of drought conditions. Only the very northernmost parts of Vermont and Maine are not, according to the US Drought Monitor. Massachusetts has been hit particularly hard – the MA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs says rainfall in January was eight to 13 inches below average across most of the state.
With conservation and water use restrictions in effect, I’ve been thinking about the ways people use water, especially in cold weather. Of course, there are the year-round uses of everyday life: cooking, washing dishes and hands, doing laundry, flushing toilets, and showering. But there are also uses we may not think about, like winter sports, electricity generation, and idling our gasolinepowered cars to warm them up.
Like our member Macy Hannan, who’s featured on page 20 of this issue, I’ve recently become an avid curler. Yes, that sport. The one where you push 40-pound rocks down a sheet of ice while your teammates sweep furiously and get yelled at by your team captain. I promise it’s a lot more fun than it sounds on paper.
Apart from playing, one of my favorite parts of curling is volunteering to teach new curlers. Every time we introduce new people to the sport, one of the first things we explain is that the ice (called a “sheet” in curling lingo) is our most important piece of equipment.
Curling ice isn’t like hockey or skating ice. The sheets are designed to be as flat as possible, without the almost imperceptible hills and valleys of arena ice. Those dips and peaks can quickly cause rocks to veer off course in unexpected directions. Not ideal for a sport where the primary goal is precision.
Curling ice also has a textured surface similar to an orange peel. This texture is called a “pebble.” It’s vital to the sport because it creates airflow beneath the stones and allows them to smoothly glide in their characteristic dainty arcs across the ice’s surface.
To create the ice’s level surface and the pebble, you have to remove as many contaminants from the water as possible. Ultimately, great water quality helps create great curling ice. It’s yet another motivation for me to do my part to ensure we as an
industry continue to provide high-quality water to our customers and consumers.
Hopefully, drought conditions will have lessened by the time this issue is published. Until then, I’ll be even more appreciative of this resource, especially as we approach several important water observances. The United Nations’ World Water Day, which focuses on glacier preservation this year, is on March 22.
Later in the year, we’ll observe Water Week (April 6-12) and Drinking Water Week (May 4-10). Water Week coincides with the National Water Policy Fly-In organized by AWWA, AMWA, NACWA, WRF, WEF, and the WateReuse Association. More information will become available as we get closer to these weeks, and I encourage anyone interested in getting involved in either event to reach out to the Section at info@ne-awwa.org.
A New Assessment for the New England Section of AWWA?
All members of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) pay annual dues, and a portion of your dues helps fund your local Section and provide additional member value. In most cases, the total dues include a portion of the base dues paid to AWWA and an additional assessment that is remitted to the Sections for their respective operations. Since reorganizing in 2023, the New England Section of the American Water Works Association (NEAWWA) has not included an additional assessment, despite having one of the larger section memberships.
Your Section Board of Directors is seeking member input and support for a proposed assessment to help sustain and enhance our programs, initiatives, and operational expenses. As a professional organization dedicated to the advancement of safe and sustainable water practices, NEAWWA relies on funding to continue offering valuable resources, training, and advocacy for our water professionals.
In the past year, AWWA headquarters has covered our expenses that are on top of the regular allotment (i.e., that portion of the base dues that are returned to the Sections). However, as our Section posits to provide value to our members and our needs for resources grow, we must establish a sustainable financial structure. An assessment would allow our Section to get on the path of financial sustainability. An assessment is set as a percentage of the annual base dues paid to AWWA, ranging from 5% to 40%. The New England Section previously operated with a 40% assessment.
The Board does not wish to operate at that elevated level.
Assessments play a vital role in supporting your local Section.
An assessment helps provide needed funding for professional development opportunities, scholarships, advocacy efforts, education, collaboration, and administration. Without these funds, NEAWWA risks sliding back on important initiatives that directly impact our members and the water community as a whole.
We will be circulating a ballot to our members this spring, asking you to approve the implementation of a new assessment. It is crucial that every member participates in this voting process. For an assessment to be implemented, we need at least 25% of our membership – approximately 350 members – to vote, with at least two-thirds approving the measure. Your participation in this vote is essential to the continued stability and success of NEAWWA.
We will be providing more information on this critical vote in the coming weeks and months. We strongly encourage all members
to review the details of this proposal and make their voices heard. This assessment is about investing in the strength and longevity of NEAWWA and the water professionals we serve. By voting in favor of this initiative, you are ensuring that we can continue to provide the programs, education, knowledge exchange, networking, and advocacy that support our mission.
When you receive your ballot via email, please take a moment to cast your vote. Your support is critical in shaping the future of NEAWWA. Let’s work together to sustain and grow our Section for the benefit of all members and the communities we serve.
Thank you for your commitment to NEAWWA and for taking the time to participate in this important decision.
Safety Toolbox: Safety Starts with Everyone
Safety is a way of life, and preventing accidents and injuries is a responsibility shared by every employee within an organization. When we’re familiar with our work environments, it’s easy to become complacent and cut corners, which can lead to injury, disability, and potential loss of income.
Fundamentals of Safety:
• Accidents result from hazardous actions, hazardous conditions, or a combination of both.
• Mental alertness and situational awareness can help avoid most accidents.
• Hazards exist in many forms: electrical, mechanical, pressure, temperature, chemical, biological, radiation, sound, gravity, and motion.
Ways to Maintain Safety:
• Review potential hazards, preventions, and emergency response plans before work begins.
• Support and encourage open discussions about safety and potential hazards.
• Where possible, eliminate the hazard before applying other controls.
• Reduce mental and environmental distractions.
• Ensure all employees have the authority and responsibility to stop work that presents an imminent hazard.
Remember, safety starts with you and everyone you work with.
You can use the energy wheel to help identify new hazards and improve existing processes
Accidents don’t result from random bad luck – they’re caused by unsafe actions or unsafe conditions. By addressing these issues and committing ourselves to the prevention of accidents, we can reduce the likelihood of injury to ourselves and our colleagues.
GUARANTEEING
DeepBubbleTM Multi-Stage Air Stripper
High efficiency deep stages
“The installation process was smooth. By 5 pm that night, the system was ready to treat water. We also looked for reliability and service after the sale. Lowry is available when we need them.” JIM L. / LIMESTONE WATER AND SEWER, ME
Adjustment and Radon Removal at 20 GPM, CT
Looking Ahead at the 2025 Regulatory Agenda
Steve Via
In 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized several rules that the drinking water community must now implement. These rules represent billions of dollars in additional capital and operation investment by public water systems across the United States.
Today’s evolving regulatory landscape places considerable logistical and financial demands on US public water systems. Water systems require timely, strategic planning to navigate these requirements sustainably and effectively.
New Rules
Water systems should prioritize their efforts to prepare for the EPA’s new rules, including the Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Rule; the designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI). A rulemaking in early 2024 also changed requirements related to consumer confidence reports (CCRs). The following sections provide a quick rundown.
PFAS
EPA finalized the PFAS Rule in May 2024. To be compliant in spring of 2029 as required by the rule, systems must start immediately. Key actions include conducting required monitoring to determine if PFAS levels will require treatment or the development of alternative supply sources. Treatment solutions will entail necessary engineering and state permitting, along with pilot projects and substantial financing for many systems.
Estimates vary, but there is broad agreement that thousands of water systems, including many small systems, with limited financial resources, will need to address these tasks to remain compliant. AWWA and other parties have filed petitions for judicial review of the final PFAS Rule. The outcome of that process is unlikely to be known until mid-to-late 2025. Judicial review doesn’t stay or delay the PFAS Rule requirements, so systems would be
ill-advised to delay their efforts to pursue compliance based on the ongoing judicial review.
In addition, EPA finalized a regulation under CERCLA, designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances. The designation creates a quandary for water and wastewater systems generating waste products containing PFAS, as they can now be drawn into litigation under CERCLA’s broad liability scheme if they generate waste at sites targeted for remediation.
Lead and Copper
EPA published the final LCRI on October 30, 2024, starting the countdown for community and nontransient noncommunity water systems (CWSs) to begin working toward compliance deadlines. The rule delayed and modified several provisions in the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) and made major changes to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) treatment technique.
Perhaps the most important change is that the final LCRI set a 13-year deadline for all systems to replace lead service lines or galvanized service lines requiring replacement (GRR). The rule requires each system to identify the pipe material used in all service lines and to develop a validation study that demonstrates nonlead service lines are accurately described as lead, non-lead, or GRR.
The LCRI also changed the LCR’s corrosion control provisions. The final rule reduces the lead action level to 10 ug/L, introduces a new framework detailing where to take compliance samples, analyzes both first- and fifth-liter samples when sampling from sites with lead plumbing or lead service lines, and changes the compliance calculation for lead exceedances in several ways. While delaying the applicability of several LCRR provisions for three years, the LCRI reinforces the need for systems to adopt protocols for notifying customers of lead risks and providing filters when lead,
Community water systems (CWSs) must complete risk and resilience assessments and emergency response plans this year.
CWS Size (persons served)
>100,000
50,000-99,999
3,300-49,999
Initial Deadline to Certify Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) (no later than)
March 31, 2025
December 31, 2025
June 30, 2026
Initial Deadline to Certify Emergency Response Plan (<6 months of RRA but no later than)
September 30, 2025
June 30, 2026
December 30, 2026
Table 1. Upcoming Certification Deadlines for Risk and Resilience Compliance
Projection
GRR, or lead status unknown service lines are affected or disturbed. Similarly, systems must notify occupants of compliance monitoring results within three business days. The LCRI expands LCRR inventory requirements to include identified lead connectors, and the final rule retains LCRR requirements for school and childcare facility monitoring.
As with the PFAS Rule, AWWA is seeking judicial review of the LCRI. Regardless, effective corrosion control and removal of lead service lines are important objectives for the sector. The associated logistical and financial challenges of these objectives are substantial. Systems have the opportunity over the next three years to pursue these objectives and position themselves to comply with LCR requirements today, in 2027, and beyond.
CCRs
America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 required the EPA to review and revise CCR requirements. After considerable delays, the agency finalized the rulemaking in May 2024. The biggest change to the CCRs is that CWSs serving a population greater than 10,000 will need to provide the reports twice each year instead of once. The rule codifies existing electronic delivery option guidance. Compliance will require adjusting practices to meet the new requirements. Compliance with the CCR revisions begins on Jan. 1, 2027, with compliance data collected in 2026.
Large water infrastructure projects are complex, involving multiple teams and disciplines. In addition to the pressures of meeting schedule and budget, these projects and programs are expected to achieve lasting value for the environment and society.
Rules on the Horizon
EPA continues to work toward additional drinking water standards and revisions to existing rules.
Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts (M/DBPs) Rules
EPA identified updating the Surface Water Treatment Rules and Disinfectant Byproduct Rules in its third Six-Year Review in 2016. A subsequent consent agreement in Waterkeeper Alliance v. USEPA led to the current rulemaking schedule, with a proposal anticipated in July 2025. The agency stretched the time available to develop the proposal by organizing a National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) workgroup process. The agency’s M/ DBP agenda and the NDWAC focused on the risk posed by Legionella pneumophila. Key recommendations included setting a numeric secondary disinfectant residual requirement and requiring corrective action when individual monitoring locations were below the required concentration. Other areas of alignment between NDWAC and EPA included requiring finished water storage inspection and maintenance, managing DBPs and residual concentrations where water is sold to consecutive systems, and reducing DBP formation potential through greater control of total organic carbon.
Perchlorate
In July 2020, the Nature Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenged the EPA’s decision to withdraw a positive regulatory determination for perchlorate. In 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with NRDC. In 2024, EPA agreed to a court order requiring the agency to issue a proposed rule by Nov. 21, 2025, and a final regulation by May 21, 2027.
Upcoming Deadlines
SEAMLESS PROGRAM DELIVERY WITH MEANINGFUL OUTCOMES.
Our local team of experts partner with you at every stage to help you plan better and deliver efficiently. We provide the right team to help you achieve your desired outcomes at every milestone through our integrated and seamless approach that will satisfy your objectives, maintain the highest standards of quality, and proactively mitigate risk.
We are committed to your success in delivering a resilient tomorrow.
As a part of AWIA, EPA requires CWSs to certify that they have conducted risk and resilience assessments and emergency response plans. The deadlines to submit certification of completion are enforceable, with penalties for noncompliance. Systems serving >50,000 people, including populations served through wholesale accounts, all have certification deadlines this year (Table 1). In addition, EPA is conducting enforcement audits of CWS compliance with these requirements. Importantly, the audits assess how well systems performed in preparing assessments and response plans. It’s worth noting that EPA’s drinking water enforcement initiative isn’t limited to AWIA. Regional enforcement staff and contractors plan to conduct hundreds of inspections at larger CWSs to evaluate compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act regulations.
Ways to Stay Ahead and Engaged
As recent regulations go into effect, consider the following strategies to stay ahead:
• Evaluate current datasets and conduct initial PFAS monitoring required to determine if treatment or alternative water supply options will be needed to comply with the PFAS Rule.
• Complete characterization of service line materials and, to the degree possible, complete as many service line replacements as
possible before the initial LCRI compliance date.
• Evaluate LCRI corrosion control performance with anticipated changes in compliance sampling pools, sampling protocols, and compliance calculations.
• Review records to identify lead connectors and incorporate that information into service line inventories.
• Develop protocols and outreach for lead observations, lead exceedances, potential presence of lead service lines, and full lead service line replacements.
• Ensure compliance with deadlines for AWIA risk and resilience assessments and response plans. Also, be sure to fully document the thoughtful and complete execution of the provisions.
Editor’s note: For more regulatory updates and information on a wide variety of water-related topics, including the latest legislative and regulatory developments on lead and PFAS, visit AWWA’s Resources Hub (www.awwa.org/resources-hub).
• Review and comment on the upcoming Stage 3 M/DBP rulemaking when it’s proposed this summer. This is the last year of increased state revolving loan fund allotments under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. That allotment will be for federal fiscal year 2026, which starts Oct. 1, 2025, and ends Sept. 30, 2026. Systems seeking to access those funds will need to have applications submitted per state requirements and deadlines. This is the last year of increased state revolving loan fund allotments under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. That allotment will be for federal fiscal year 2026, which starts Oct. 1, 2025, and ends Sept. 30, 2026. Systems seeking to access those funds will need to have applications submitted per state requirements and deadlines. For more information contact: James M. Emery, P.G., 603-279-4425, james.emery@gza.com 56 Main Street / P.O. Box 1578 Meredith, NH 03253 www.gza.com
AWWA Board of Directors Selects Brent Tippey as Next President-Elect
The American Water Works Association AWWA) Board of Directors today selected Brent Tippey from Lexington, Kentucky, as the Association’s next president-elect.
The Board also selected AWWA’s four vice presidents and a Young Professional directorat-large during its annual winter meeting in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.
Tippey will begin his term as presidentelect in June at the conclusion of AWWA’s Annual Conference & Exposition ACE25). His term as president begins in June 2026 following that of current President-Elect Heather Collins.
Tippey is the Vice President – East Region Drinking Water Lead for HDR, a global professional services firm. An active member of the Kentucky-Tennessee Section since joining AWWA in 1999, Tippey serves on the AWWA Board of Directors, as well as
the Executive Committee. He has served as Chair of AWWA’s Water Treatment Design and Construction Committee and as Chair and Trustee of the Kentucky-Tennessee Section. He holds a bachelor of science in civil engineering from the University of Kentucky.
The Board selected the following four vice presidents:
• John Eisnor, director of operations at Halifax Water in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. He has been engaged in the Atlantic Canada Section since joining AWWA in 2000.
• Andrea Odegard-Begay, senior associate at Hazen and Sawyer in Goodyear, Arizona. She has been an active participant in the Arizona Section since joining AWWA in 2000.
• Kevin Smith, project manager for Ramboll. He has been engaged in
the Virginia Section since joining AWWA in 2011.
• Andrea Song, utilities division manager for the City of Westminster, Colorado. She has been actively involved in the Rocky Mountain Section since joining AWWA in 1999.
The Board selected Lily Lopez as Young Professional director-at-large. Lopez is the director of external affairs and sustainability at Walnut Valley Water District in Walnut, California, where she has served since 2019. She has been engaged in the California-Nevada Section since joining AWWA in 2020.
The Board appointed Mark Theiler as Young Professional advisor. Theiler is the director of production at Middlesex Water Company in New Jersey.
The new officers will begin their terms in June at the conclusion of ACE25.
Brent Tippey John Eisnor
Lily Lopez Andrea Odegard-Begay
Kevin Smith Andrea Song
Mark Theiler
“I WAS FASCINATED BY PROBLEM-SOLVING, WHICH LED ME TO PURSUE ENGINEERING IN COLLEGE. ONE THING LED TO ANOTHER, AND I FOUND MYSELF IN WATER RESOURCES CLASSES. IT WASN’T UNTIL I STARTED TAKING THOSE CLASSES SURROUNDING WATER TREATMENT AND REMEDIATION THAT I BEGAN TO UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT WATER IS.”
New England Region Collegian Macy Hannan
What initially sparked your interest in water and its significance?
Growing up in Michigan, I spent all my summers surrounded by the Great Lakes, swimming and enjoying all that it had to offer. I took advantage of all the resources that were right around me.
I was fascinated by problem-solving, which led me to pursue engineering in college. One thing led to another, and I found myself in water resources classes. It wasn’t until I started taking those classes surrounding water treatment and remediation that I began to understand how important water is. While I was growing up, I took my clean water for granted. Learning what truly went wrong during the Flint, Michigan water crisis exposed the devastating consequences of neglect, policy failures, and environmental injustice. It showed how something as fundamental as clean water could be taken for granted –until it was no longer safe. I felt the drive to do my part to ensure things like this would never happen again. I committed to environmental engineering without any doubt. I was inspired by how the processes of clean water and other remediation projects worked scientifically. Moreso, I was exhilarated by the opportunities I had to directly help communities around me.
Could you explain a bit about your current research or projects?
I am currently a graduate student at the University of Maine in the civil and environmental engineering department, where my research focuses on the dispersion and remediation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These ‘forever chemicals’ are particularly concerning due to their persistence in the environment and their potential health
risks. My work aims to better understand how PFAS move through various environmental media and how we can develop effective remediation strategies to mitigate their impact.
Shortly after I arrived at the University of Maine, the sixth-largest aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) spill in the nation occurred in Brunswick, Maine. This event became a significant focus of my research, as AFFF is known to contain high concentrations of PFAS, which can contaminate water sources, soil, and local ecosystems. Over the past six months, I have been conducting extensive field sampling to assess the spill’s impact, collecting data from private wells, surface water, shellfish, sediment, wastewater influent and effluent, and soil samples in and around the affected area. By analyzing these samples, I aim to track the fate and transport of PFAS, determining how these chemicals are spreading through the environment over time.
Beyond the technical aspects of my research, I also work closely with the local community to ensure that residents understand the extent of the contamination both spatially and temporally. PFAS contamination in drinking water is a serious concern, and by engaging with the community, I hope to provide transparent information and contribute to efforts that protect public health. Thorough testing and analysis are essential to understanding the full impact of the spill on drinking water supplies, aquatic life, and the broader ecosystem. Ultimately, my research will help inform remediation strategies that can be used not only in Brunswick but in other PFASaffected areas across the country.
Through this work, I’ve become even more passionate about environmental
Connection
contamination research, as it intersects both science and public health. I hope that my findings will contribute to more effective policies, treatment technologies, and long-term solutions for PFAS contamination, helping to prevent future environmental and human health crises.
Could you share any memorable experiences or lessons learned from your work that have shaped your perspective on the field? Before beginning graduate school, I worked as an environmental engineering intern at Barr Engineering Co. for a year and a half. During this time, I was able to dive into a plethora of projects including field work and reporting in the office. A key item I learned during my time there was the importance of communicating with others. It amazes me every single day the bank of knowledge that surrounds me in this field. If you don’t know something, it is very possible someone else will and it is necessary to communicate and cooperate. This not only streamlines problem-solving but makes a better product in the end.
Discuss your other activities or interests. Outside of the office, I love adventuring and trying anything new to me! One of my favorite ways to find community around me is through staying active. I am currently
in a Doubles Curling League and I have participated in run clubs, group trips for backpacking, and participating in triathlons. When not outside, I enjoy catching up on my reading list and cooking!
Controlling Disinfection Byproducts at Maine Water’s
Mirror Lake Water Treatment Plant
KEY TAKEAWAYS
With elevated disinfection byproduct (DBP) levels in its distribution system, a water treatment plant in Maine worked with an engineering consultant to develop solutions and avoid possible regulatory violations.
Four mitigation options were determined – two of them immediate and two long-term, with the chosen strategy being premembrane coagulation.
Recommendations from the success of the DBP mitigation project include being proactive, collaborating with team members and outside experts, and planning for resilience.
Maine Water Company’s Camden-Rockland Division (CRD) supplies an expansive distribution system in the midcoast Maine area, serving approximately 7,500 customer accounts in Camden, Rockland, Rockport, Thomaston, Owls Head, Union, and Warren. CRD’s Mirror Lake Water Treatment Plant (WTP) provides water through microfiltration membranes, with a summer capacity of 5.6 mgd and winter capacity of 3 mgd (due to flux capacity of the membranes). The demand from the CRD system
can be as much as 4 mgd in the summer and as little as 2 mgd in the winter months. The main water source for the Mirror Lake WTP is Mirror Lake, which can be replenished from Grassy Pond. Until the plant’s microfiltration membranes were added in 2010 (Photo 1), it operated under a filtration waiver.
Figure 1 shows the overall treatment process at the plant. Raw water from Mirror Lake either flows by gravity or is pumped via three raw water pumps to the 48,000-gallon wet well. From there, four membrane feed pumps push water through four strainers for pretreatment before microfiltration. Effluent from the strainers is combined and fed to one of three microfiltration units. Filtered water is then injected with sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) before entering the 1-million-gallon capacity clearwell. The treated water is injected with sodium hypochlorite and caustic soda to maintain the necessary disinfectant residual through the distribution system and achieve final pH adjustment. Zinc orthophosphate provides corrosion control.
Disinfection Byproducts
Disinfection byproducts (DBPs) are formed when organic matter in water reacts with disinfectants (typically free chlorine or
Anne Malenfant and Michael Ames
chloramines). CRD reported elevated DBPs in 2021, with both total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and the sum of five haloacetic acids (HAA5) nearing their respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Maine Water was facing a potential violation in spring 2022 as a result of these elevated DBPs, so it teamed up with engineering consultant CDM Smith to evaluate mitigation strategies that could be implemented relatively quickly while also investigating longerterm solutions.
In the United States, specific groups of DBPs are regulated in drinking water, and both TTHM and HAA5 are concerns for CRD. The concentration of DBPs—particularly TTHM—increases over time in the presence of free chlorine. Raw water quality, the treatment processes at the Mirror Lake WTP, and conditions in the distribution system contribute to formation of DBPs. The microfiltration processes at the plant provide significant turbidity removal but only a small amount (about 10%) of organics removal, as most of the organic content is dissolved. After filtration, sodium hypochlorite is added for free chlorine disinfection upstream of the clearwell and injected again after the clearwell for residual disinfection before entering the distribution system to control pathogens.
In the distribution system, older water can have higher TTHM levels because the organics are in contact with residual disinfectants for a long period of time. Therefore, because regulatory compliance for DBPs is measured in the distribution system, both the water treatment facility and the distribution system need to be considered in identifying ways to reduce DBP levels.
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
The Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR) was promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency in February 1999 to reduce the levels of DBPs in tap water. It superseded the earlier 1979 Interim Trihalomethane Rule. Under the DBPR, two groups of chlorinated DBPs (TTHM and HAA5) were regulated in two stages. The Stage 1 DBPR set MCLs of 80 and 60 μg/L as system-wide running annual averages (RAAs) for TTHM and HAA5, respectively. Compliance was defined on the basis of
the RAA of four consecutive quarterly measurements of all samples throughout the distribution system.
Stage 2 built on the Stage 1 DBPR to provide additional protection by increasing compliance monitoring requirements for TTHM and HAA5. The first step of the Stage 2DBPR required drinking water utilities to conduct an initial distribution system evaluation to characterize their DBP levels, identify locations where DBP levels were the highest, and use the results to select new compliance sampling locations to replace the Stage 1 DBPR locations.
The Stage 2 DBPR also revised the basis for DBP compliance, replacing the system-wide RAA for all samples under the Stage 1 DBPR with a locational running annual average (LRAA) whereby all locations must meet the 80 and 60 μg/L MCLs for TTHM and HAA5, respectively. The Stage 2 DBPR also defines an operational evaluation level, which provides an early warning of possible future MCL violations and allows water systems to take pro-active steps to remain in compliance.
Compliance
As shown in Figure 2, compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR must balance adequate disinfection during treatment with maintaining acceptable disinfectant residuals in the distribution system, protecting against microbial activity in the system, and complying with the Total Coliform Rule. Residual organics in the WTP’s filtered effluent water react with the chlorine added for disinfection to form TTHM and HAA5. The better the organics removal through the filters, the fewer organics are available to react with chlorine.
Photo 1 Mirror Lake Water Treatment Plant membrane system.
Photo credit: Anne Malenfant
Figure 1
Treatment Process Flow Diagram
Figure 2
Technical Selection
At the same time, adequate disinfectant levels need to be maintained to provide a persistent residual throughout the distribution system, regardless of organics concentration. The longer chlorine is in contact with organics in the distribution system, the higher the resulting concentrations of TTHM and HAA5. However, if the chlorine concentration is dissipated, TTHM and HAA5 formation stops.
The HAA5 relationship with water age is complicated because some HAAs are biodegradable. Hence, when there is low or no chlorine residual, and especially when the water temperature is elevated, microbial degradation can produce HAA5 concentrations lower in parts of the distribution system with the highest water age. Peak TTHM and HAA5 formation occurs in the warmer months of the year as a result of higher water temperature and greater concentrations of organic contaminants.
Understanding the relationship among key water quality parameters (TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, filtered water organics concentrations, water age, and disinfectant residual) is critical to keeping drinking water safe and ensuring water systems meet DBP regulations.
Camden-Rockland Division’s DBP Sampling
CRD is required to sample four compliance sampling locations under the Stage 2 DBPR. In addition, Maine Water tests for DBPs at the distribution system entry point at the Mirror Lake WTP, and it collects operations and maintenance monitoring samples during noncompliance months. The individual results for CRD’s sampling
locations and the calculated compliance LRAAs are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
The following observations are based on CRD’s historical DBP results prior to the project:
• TTHM levels at the compliance sampling locations and in the finished water leaving the Mirror Lake WTP followed similar trends, with the highest concentration of TTHM in the distribution system occurring in the third quarter.
• The concentration of TTHM increased significantly from the plant’s finished water as it traveled through the distribution system, typically starting below 20 μg/Land increasing to more than 100 μg/L.
• While the plot of TTHM LRAA shows that all sample locations within the distribution system comply with the MCL of 80 μg/L, the recent trend has shown a significant increase; by the end of 2021, three out of the four compliance locations were within 20% of the MCL, and two of the four were above 70 μg/L.
• Similar to TTHM formation, the HAA5 levels are significantly affected by seasonal trends; however, they are the opposite, with the lowest HAA5 results in the warm weather months, and the highest in the winter. This is the result of biodegradation of one of the HAAs (dichloroacetic acid) during the summer months. Conversely to the TTHM trends, the water age in CRD’s distribution system can be analyzed by looking at HAA5 results from lowest to highest, with Owls Head Town Office clearly having the highest water age. Following are some observations based on the data:
Figure 3
Trends: TTHM Monitoring at Compliance Locations and Mirror Lake WTP (Top) and TTHM LRAA (Bottom)
Trends: HAA5 Monitoring at Compliance Locations and Mirror Lake WTP (Top) and HAA5 LRAA (Bottom)
Figure 4
• Around August 2020, HAA5 levels dropped significantly, likely because of CRD balancing chlorine residual in the distribution system to minimize DBP formation; before this change, one of the four sites was approaching the MCL, and two others we’re not far below.
• CRD is not currently near the MCL for HAA5; this is likely because of the careful balance of chlorine residual; with a higher chlorine residual, keeping HAA5 low could be a challenge.
• Almost all the TTHM in the Mirror Lake WTP’s finished water and distribution samples are chloroform, which is also the most investigated of the regulated TTHM and is known to impose the least health risk from exposure (NHDES 2006).
• In some sampling rounds, lower HAA5 levels are observed in the distribution system than in the finished water, especially during warmer weather, likely a result of biodegradation.
• Finished water pH influences DBP formation in the distribution system, where an increase in pH generally increases TTHM formation, while a decrease generally increases HAA5 formation.
• Maintaining pH in the target range is important for effective corrosion control with zinc orthophosphate.
Potential Solutions
Following the historical data analysis and collaborative workshops between Maine Water and its consultant team, four possible paths were determined for Maine Water to reduce DBPs. These solutions included both immediate and long-term options.
Immediate Options
Because of compliance concerns with DBPs, the immediate mitigation options were rapidly and thoroughly vetted, and both were submitted for Maine’s Drinking Water Program treatment change applications. Both solutions represent relatively minimal capital investments, with chemical feed systems and additional analyzers.
Premembrane Coagulation
The addition of a coagulant ahead of the membranes could provide additional organics removal. CDM Smith collaborated with Maine Water to conduct jar testing to select the coagulant dose and prepare for a full-scale pilot on one of the membrane racks, including coordinating with the membrane manufacturer to understand and plan for potential adverse effects. At the completion of pilot testing, a summary of the results was presented for the consideration of full-scale implementation.
A small dose of coagulant (aluminum chlorohydrate, or ACH) significantly reduced organic levels (40%–65%), with minimal effects on other water quality parameters, including corrosion control, and minimal impact on membrane operation. However, adding the coagulant would increase solids production and aluminum in the cleaning-waste spray irrigation system. This required additional permit considerations with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
Chloramines
An engineering analysis was conducted to explore using chloramines for secondary disinfection, which would reduce the production of DBPs in the distribution system. The evaluation included corrosion control considerations, public notification requirements, and future regulations. Chloramines would provide a more stable residual in the distribution system while minimizing TTHM and HAA5 formation. Bench-scale testing with the Mirror Lake WTP showed approximately a 60% reduction in both TTHM and HAA5 formation with chloramines compared with using chlorine.
However, the high water age in the distribution system, combined with low turnover in the four storage tanks, would result in challenges related to nitrification and would increase system maintenance requirements such as flushing. The conversion to chloramines would require public education and outreach, and it could affect industrial and commercial customers. Finally, corrosion control is an important consideration when converting to chloramines in systems with lead-containing pipes, fixtures, or solder. While the plant’s corrosion control treatment appears optimized, historical review of Lead and Copper Rule records indicates the possible presence of lead in the distribution system. Conversion to chloramines would require a rigorous monitoring program to optimize the corrosion control treatment again.
Figure 5
TTHM and HAA5 LRAAs With Coagulant Addision
Technical Selection
Long-Term Options
In parallel with the evaluation of options that could be immediately implemented, vetting of long-term options was also important in case additional mitigation of organics was required. These would take more time to implement and required greater capital investment.
Tank Mixing and Aeration
Equipment options for CRD’s four tanks were explored. While mixing and equipment costs are not capital-intensive, the tank sites might require extensive electrical upgrades to power the new equipment, and the tanks might need to be modified. While lower levels of THMs would be likely, lower levels of HAAs would not be expected, and DBP production as a whole would not be addressed. The tanks in CRD’s distribution system struggle to turn over, so the benefits might be minimal.
Post-Membrane Granular Activated Carbon or Ion-Exchange Contactors
The utility explored equipment options for placing granular activated carbon or anion exchange pressure vessel contactors after the membranes for organics removal. While potentially lowering the organics levels significantly, this option would also require a new building in the cold Maine climate, capital-intensive
“A small dose of coagulant significantly reduced organic levels, with minimal effects on other water quality parameters”
equipment, and a significant increase in operations and maintenance for the Mirror Lake WTP operators.
Project Results
The final recommendation of the Mirror Lake WTP’s DBP mitigation project was premembrane coagulation. Implementation occurred in July 2022, which included the following tasks:
• Adding a form of mixing downstream of the coagulation injection point to increase efficiency and potentially improve organics removal
• Monitoring the membranes to determine whether coagulation improved performance
• Monitoring residuals management in terms of additional solids production and on aluminum levels in the spray fields
• Installation of an ultraviolet transmittance analyzer to monitor performance and optimize coagulant addition
Figure 5 presents the TTHM and HAA5 LRAA results after adding premembrane coagulation to the process. CRD added less than 1 mg/L of ACH while achieving a 35%–50% reduction in LRAA for both DBP groups. Since this change, CRD has observed decreased chlorine demands and increased chlorine residuals in its distribution system.
Given the success of the project, CRD recommends the following for systems facing similar challenges:
• Be proactive; don’t wait until a violation occurs to take action.
• Solicit input from all team members. The operators know the system and will need to run it after changes have been made. In addition, fresh perspectives can bring innovative solutions.
• Understand the needs of your community and where it is headed.
• Taking the local conditions into consideration, plan for resilience and other future improvements.
• Work with a range of experts and collaborate with stakeholders to set the stage for future success.
This project moved forward, aided by constant communication and collaboration to meet a tight schedule for compliance, all without the need for a large capital project. The result was a successful undertaking for Maine Water and CRD customers.
About the Authors
Anne Malenfant is project manager with CDM Smith, Boston, Mass.; malenfantae@cdmsmith.com.
Michael Ames is director of service delivery with Maine Water Company, Rockport, Maine.
LITHIUM IN DRINKING WATER:
What We Know and What We Need to Learn
Li
The presence of lithium (Li) in drinking water has emerged as an area of interest in the industry. While Li is known for its therapeutic use in treating mood disorders and its critical role in lithium-ion batteries, its occurrence in drinking water raises questions about health impacts and water treatment challenges. Here, we explore the science behind Li in drinking water, its potential risks and benefits, and the technologies available to manage its presence. More information can be found in a recent AWWA Water Science publication by Korak, Brandhuber, and Goodwill (https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.70009).
What Is Lithium, and Why Is It in Our Water?
Lithium is a naturally occurring element, classified as an alkali metal, and is relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust. It is released into the aqueous environment through the natural weathering of rocks and minerals, and higher concentrations are often found in groundwater compared to surface water. Li could also enter water sources due to human activities such as wastewater discharge, improper disposal of lithium-ion batteries, and industrial emissions from the energy sector.
A 2022 study in the United States found that Li concentrations in groundwater used for public water supplies can vary widely, with levels ranging from less than 1 microgram per liter (µg/L) to over 1,200 µg/L. However, the median concentration in groundwater is generally below 10 µg/L. Despite these relatively low levels, questions have arisen about whether even trace amounts of Li could affect public health and how would the industry respond to a potential regulation.
Why Is Lithium in Drinking Water Receiving Attention Now?
Lithium’s inclusion in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) highlights its emerging importance and should be taken as an expression of interest in possible regulation. The UCMR program requires public water systems across the United States to monitor certain unregulated contaminants to assess their prevalence and potential health risks. Li is the only metal included in UCMR 5, alongside 29 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). UCMR 5 monitoring should be completed in December 2025, providing a better insight into levels of Li in drinking water.
The UCMR 5 monitoring effort aims to fill gaps in our understanding of lithium’s occurrence in drinking water and inform future regulatory decisions. Currently, there are no federal or state regulations that limit Li levels in drinking water. The USGS and the EPA, however, list a non-regulatory Health-Based Screening Level (HBSL) of 10 µg/L, which serves as a guideline for evaluating potential health risks.
Is Lithium in Drinking Water Harmful or Beneficial?
One of the most debated aspects of Li in drinking water is its potential health effects. At therapeutic doses, typically 600 to 2,400 milligrams per day as lithium carbonate, Li is used to treat certain mental health issues. These doses correspond to much higher levels of Li in the bloodstream than would be achieved from drinking water, even in geographic areas with elevated Li concentrations. Li concentrations in drinking water are typically measured in micrograms per liter (e.g., parts per billion), which are orders of magnitude lower than therapeutic doses.
Joseph Goodwill, Julie Korak, and Phil Brandhuber
Technical Selection
High doses of lithium – well above what is found in drinking water – can have adverse health effects, including gastrointestinal distress, kidney damage, thyroid dysfunction, and neurological issues. Li exposure during pregnancy has also been linked to potential risks, such as congenital anomalies in newborns. However, these concerns are tied to therapeutic doses or accidental overdoses, not the trace levels typically found in drinking water.
Some studies have suggested that low levels of Li in drinking water might have public health benefits, including reduced suicide rates and lower all-cause mortality. A notable study from Texas found an inverse relationship between Li concentrations in drinking water and suicide rates, sparking a debate about the potential for Li supplementation in water supplies, like fluoride. However, other research, including a large Danish cohort study, has found no significant association between low Li levels (≤30 µg/L) and mental health benefits. The topic remains quite controversial, and more research is needed to clarify the relationship between trace Li exposure and health outcomes.
How Do We Measure Lithium in Water?
Accurately measuring Li in water is crucial for monitoring and research. The only method approved under UCMR 5 is inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES), a highly sensitive technique with a detection limit low enough to meet the minimum reporting limit of 9 µg/L. Other techniques, such as ion chromatography and mass spectrometry, are also used in research settings but are not approved for regulatory data collection.
While analytical methods for Li are well-established, challenges remain. For example, the accuracy of Li measurements can be affected by the presence of other dissolved salts and metals in water, which may be especially important in brackish or seawater. Addressing these challenges is important for ensuring reliable data that can guide public health decisions.
Can Lithium Be Removed from Drinking Water?
The presence of Li in water poses a challenge for treatment technologies. Lithium’s small ionic radius and moderate charge density make it difficult to remove using conventional water treatment methods. For example, standard processes like coagulation, sedimentation, and filtration are largely ineffective at removing Li.
Currently, reverse osmosis (RO) is the most reliable technology for removing Li from water. RO uses a semi-permeable membrane to filter out a wide range of contaminants, including Li, but it is energy-intensive and costly. Other emerging technologies, such as electrodialysis and ion-sieve materials, show promise but require further research and development before they can be applied at full scale.
Ion exchange is a common method for removing certain dissolved and charged species from water, such as in water softening. However, ion exchange has limited effectiveness for
Lithium in drinking water is an emerging issue that bridges chemistry, public health, and water treatment science. While its presence in water sources is largely natural, growing industrial use and groundwater use could increase Li concentrations in the future.
Li removal due to the low selectivity of Li for conventional ion exchange resins. Similarly, manganese oxide-coated media, often used for removing other metals, has shown minimal ability to adsorb Li at pH values most relevant to drinking water treatment.
What Should the Research Priorities Be?
Research into managing Li in drinking water should focus on developing advanced treatment technologies, particularly ionic sieves and electrodialysis. These technologies offer promise to be selective for Li removal as an alternative to RO as an indiscriminate desalination method.
Ion Sieves: Ion sieves are engineered materials that are designed to specifically capture Li ions. These materials are typically derived from manganese oxides, or other tailored nanostructured materials, which provide a high degree of Li selectivity due to their unique pore structures and chemical affinities. Research that may prove particularly useful to the water industry includes developing scalability to use ion sieves at full scale, and optimizing material regeneration, and improving cost-effectiveness.
Electrodialysis: Electrodialysis (ED) is an electrochemical separation process that uses ion-exchange membranes and an electric field to selectively remove ions from water. Unlike reverse osmosis, which separates water from nearly all dissolved ions, electrodialysis allows for more targeted removal, potentially lowering energy requirements. Research could explore hybrid systems that integrate electrodialysis with other treatment methods to improve efficiency and adapt to different water chemistries. Compared to ion sieves, ED is already manufactured for full-scale commercial use, and further advances could make ED a viable option for Li removal in a drinking water context.
Conclusion
Lithium in drinking water is an emerging issue that bridges chemistry, public health, and water treatment science. While its presence in water sources is largely natural, growing industrial use and groundwater use could increase Li concentrations in the future. The inclusion of Li in UCMR 5 signals a need for greater attention to its health effects and treatability. By investing in research, monitoring, and technology development, we can better understand and manage this element to ensure safe drinking water for all.
About the Authors
Joe Goodwill is the Carroll D. & Charles M. Billmyer Professor in Engineering at the University of Rhode Island. He holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in Environmental Engineering from UMass Amherst and a B.S. from Lafayette College.
Julie Korak is an Assistant Professor in Environmental Engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder. She holds a PhD and MS in Civil Engineering and BS degrees in Chemical and Environmental Engineering.
Phil Brandhuber is the owner of his own firm, Brandhuber Water Quality & Treatment LLC, and a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado Boulder.
References
Korak, J. A., Brandhuber, P. J., & Goodwill, J. E. (2024). Lithium in drinking water: Review of chemistry, analytical methods, and treatment technologies. AWWA Water Science, 6(6), e70009. Sharma, N., Westerhoff, P., & Zeng, C. (2022). Lithium occurrence in drinking water sources of the United States. Chemosphere, 305, 135458.
Fajardo, V. A., LeBlanc, P. J., & Fajardo, V. A. (2018). Trace lithium in Texas tap water is negatively associated with all-cause mortality and premature death. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 43(4), 412-414.
Knudsen, N. N., Schullehner, J., Hansen, B., Jørgensen, L. F., Kristiansen, S. M., Voutchkova, D. D., ... & Ersbøll, A. K. (2017). Lithium in drinking water and incidence of suicide: a nationwide individual-level cohort study with 22 years of follow-up. International journal of environmental research and public health, 14(6), 627.
Elevate the Future of Water at ACE25
Denver, CO, USA | June 8–11, 2025
JOIN US for AWWA’s 2025 Annual Conference & Exposition (ACE25) and be part of the journey to ensure clean, safe water for all. This year’s conference will focus on innovative solutions, elevated standards, and collaborative efforts shaping the future of water.
Let’s come together to learn, connect, and inspire change. Don’t miss this opportunity to network with water professionals from around the globe and discover the latest advancements driving our industry forward.
New Section Members
Name
Company Name
Andrew Benton Ashland Water Department
Christian Lopez City of Newport
Cooper Shepardson Clarkson University
Matt Azarela DN Tanks
James Callahan Hinsdale MA DPW
Tomer Eisner LeakZon
Michael Koshgarian Providence Water Supply Board
Roger Choiniere Providence Water Supply Board
Cameron Okie Raftelis
John Decker Springfield Water & Sewer Commission
Kevin Rota Tighe & Bond
Darwin Cevallos Tighe & Bond, Inc.
Paul Smith Tighe & Bond, Inc.
Savana Bradford Tighe & Bond, Inc.
Trent Guihan Tighe & Bond, Inc.
David So TRC Solutions
Yuxuan Wang University of Massachusetts Amherst
Samantha White University of Southern Maine
Jonathan Mann US Pipe
Viken Detection Corp. Viken Detection Corp.
Macy Hannan
Nicki Pellenz
Rabia Behgaam
Name
Sonya Nevison
Charles Tiffany
Peter DiLorenzo
Hannah Milne
Samuel Atwood
Joan Cunningham
Robert Tallia
Stephen Laterra
Emmanuel Ortiz
Nathan Coté
Molly Keleher
Samuel Kamau
Nitesh Koirala
Jeffrey Beaule
Kristopher Dow
Aashish Subedi
Steven Bostwick
Daniel Carney
Gabriel Marques Viana Oliveira
Megan Bondar
Daria Minakova
Quantum Wei
New England Section Events
Celebrating Excellence: NEAWWA Introduces New Awards for 2025
The New England Section of the American Water Works Association (NEAWWA) is proud to introduce several new awards to recognize our Section members for their outstanding contributions to the water industry. These awards celebrate dedication, innovation, service, thought leadership, and historic preservation within the sector. They not only highlight individual and organizational achievements but also foster a culture of innovation, leadership, and collaboration. Recognizing the hard work and dedication of our members reinforces the value and impact of their contributions to the water sector. We encourage all eligible members to submit nominations by July 1 and help us honor those making a significant impact.
Volunteer of the Year Award
This award recognizes an individual NEAWWA member who has dedicated time and effort to advancing the section through volunteerism over the past year. To qualify, nominees must be active in at least one committee within NEAWWA. The award will be presented at the upcoming New England Section Conference or another appropriate event.
Young Professional Member of the Year Award
Designed to honor an outstanding young professional, this award celebrates individuals who have demonstrated exceptional service, leadership, and commitment to advancing young professionals (YPs) in the water industry. For this award, a young professional is defined as under 35 years old. Nominees should be active in YP events and committees and be members of both AWWA and NEAWWA. The recipient of this award will also be nominated by the Section Board for the AWWA Five Under 35 – Outstanding Young Professional Award.
Innovation Awards
Innovation is key to progress in the water industry. These awards recognize individuals, utilities, or service providers who have implemented groundbreaking ideas, best practices, or solutions resulting in significant improvements. To qualify, nominees must be AWWA members and submit a nomination application along with two letters of recommendation detailing the impact of their innovation. Innovation award recipients can be individual NEAWWA members or Utility Members. Winners will be forwarded for nomination for the AWWA Innovation Awards.
Publications Honorable Mention Awards
NEAWWA values the role of knowledge-sharing and professional contributions to the field, especially from our Section’s members.
This award honors members who have authored publications in reputable water industry media associated with AWWA or NEAWWA, including Journal AWWA, AWWA Water Science, Opflow, and NEAWWA Water Wayfinder. The award will be presented at the New England Section Conference.
New England Water Landmarks Nominations
Historic water infrastructure plays a vital role in shaping our communities. AWWA has established the Water Landmarks Award to recognize and preserve an American, Canadian, or Mexican Water Landmark at least 50 years old that has had a direct and significant relationship with water supply, treatment, distribution, or technological development. A proposed water landmark must be considered and approved by the AWWA Section in which it is located, before being submitted to AWWA for consideration. New England is no stranger to this award, with 18 previous recipients (see https://www.awwa.org/award/water-landmarksaward for all previous recipients). Some past New England recipients of the AWWA Water Landmarks Award include:
• 2013: Waterworks Museum, Boston, Massachusetts
• 1981: Burlington City Reservoir & Pump House, Burlington, Vermont
• 1983: Branch Street Pump Station, Pawtucket, Rhode Island
• 1980: Bangor Standpipe on Thomas Hill, Bangor, Maine
• 1979: Tower Hill Water Tower, Lawrence, Massachusetts
• 1978: Manchester Low Service Pumping Station, Manchester, New Hampshire
• 1973: Lawson Tower, Scituate, Massachusetts
This nomination process collects the appropriate information to confirm eligibility with the prestigious AWWA Water Landmarks Award and provides all the information needed for Section Board consideration. Nominees will be recognized at the New England Section Conference. If selected, the AWWA Water Landmarks Award is celebrated with a ceremony at the landmark site.
Submit Your Nominations by July 1!
These awards are a fantastic opportunity to recognize those who contribute to the success of NEAWWA, AWWA, and the water industry at large. If you know a deserving individual, organization, or historic landmark, we encourage you to submit a nomination before July 1. Winners will be honored at the New England Section Conference or a related event.
For more details on the individual awards, nomination requirements, and selection criteria, visit the NEAWWA website (https://NEAWWA.org/Awards). Let’s celebrate excellence in the water industry together!
New England Water Wayfinder is made possible by the companies below who convey their important messages on our pages. We thank them for their support of NE AWWA and its publication and encourage you to contact them when making your purchasing decisions. To make it easier to contact these companies, we have included the page number of their advertisement, their phone number, and, where applicable, their website.
Our concern for the environment is more than just talk
We are committed to publishing the magazine in the most environmentally-friendly process possible. So enjoy this magazine... and keep thinking green.
Detect leaks before they turn into disasters.
Connecticut’s Answer to Unaccounted for Water %
Unmatched expertise
Proven solutions that work
Programs that pay for themselves
M-FLEX 15°
HDSS 5°
“Strength
and Flexibility
To be strong and flexible, you need a pipeline that incorporates U.S. Pipe HDSS® pipe and M-FLEX® fittings. These pipes and fittings embody the exceptional strength and durability of ductile iron and are designed to handle higher deflection and accommodate various forms of ground movement. Since HDSS pipe has up to 5° of deflection and M-FLEX up to 15°, their combined capabilities allow up to 45° of real-world resilience with a simple-to-install solution for water and wastewater systems. For more info, visit us online at uspipe.com
