Crest Hill leaders and residents press for short‑term PFAS relief as Lake Michigan pipeline moves forward

Crest Hill Mayor Raymond R. Solomon and city staff told residents Monday that the city is pursuing Lake Michigan water through the Grand Prairie Water Commission as a long‑term response to PFAS detections, but acknowledged residents’ calls for more immediate relief.

The issue surfaced repeatedly during public comment and council discussion after the city’s engineers and staff briefed the council on ongoing PFAS testing and consultation with the U.S. and Illinois environmental agencies. Resident Omar Cornelio told the council, “this is not just an infrastructure project, but it is a public health emergency,” and asked the city to publish a line‑item budget for PFAS‑related funds, create short‑term relief programs and provide free tap testing and mobile water supplies.

The council’s technical staff said testing and planning remain active. City Engineer Ron Weideman said, “we are going to do one [test] close to where wells are and one far away from a well in each of the wards, so eight total,” describing a plan to sample both wells and household faucets to understand how water blends in the distribution system. City Administrator Tony Graff told the council he was monitoring federal and state rulemaking and relayed regulators’ current message: “Our water is still safe to drink. That’s a message … coming from the EPA.”

Mayor Solomon gave a timeline and treatment context: he said the city was first made aware of PFAS testing in 2021, that wells were sampled in 2023 and that tests showed two wells above the then‑new limits. He also reminded the council and public that, after evaluating options, “we as a city council voted unanimously to go to Lake Michigan water” through the Grand Prairie Water Commission; he said that earlier cost estimates compared on‑site PFAS treatment at about $170 million versus roughly $90 million for the Lake Michigan pipeline for Crest Hill’s share (figures presented to the council during prior briefings).

Multiple council members and staff reiterated that no final remedy is yet chosen and that any chosen plan will need state approval and funding. Weideman said the city had asked the consultant to proceed with a more detailed PFAS study and that well sampling and household faucet sampling would be folded into the report to help shape next steps. Tony Graff and Weideman warned the council that EPA rulemaking remains fluid and could shift compliance timelines.

Residents asked for greater transparency about how Grand Prairie Water Commission and IEPA loan or grant resources will be used, whether short‑term bottled water or rebate programs are feasible, and whether the city can offer low‑cost or subsidized home filtration for vulnerable households. Mayor Solomon and staff said they were reviewing options and would return with details; staff noted many federal and state funding streams are administered at regional or programmatic levels and that some relief measures require regulatory approval.

For now the council’s direction is mixed: continue technical testing and engineering studies, pursue Lake Michigan water as the long‑term regional solution, and evaluate options for interim resident support. City staff said they will report back with the consultant’s PFAS study results and budgetary impacts once the sampling and engineering review are complete.