Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pfas topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Alameda County health officer outlines PFAS risks and asks county to prioritize education, research and coordination

Alameda County Health Committee (Board of Supervisors) · June 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a June 9 Health Committee meeting, Alameda County Health Officer Dr. Nicholas Moss summarized PFAS exposure, health risks and regulatory context; supervisors directed staff to pursue education, legislative monitoring and a possible task force rather than immediate county regulation.

Dr. Nicholas Moss, Alameda County’s health officer, told the county Health Committee on June 9 that per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are widespread, persistent chemicals linked in high‑quality reviews to effects such as reduced antibody response, changes in cholesterol and increased risk of certain cancers. He said drinking water is the most significant exposure route for most people and noted local detections in Pleasanton and Zone 7 wells.

The presentation emphasized sources and pathways — industrial emissions, firefighting foam (including at airports and former military sites), landfills, wastewater and biosolids — and summarized recent regulatory shifts. Dr. Moss said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized rules requiring public water systems to monitor for PFAS and to reduce PFOA and PFOS to maximum contaminant levels of 4 parts per trillion, with compliance actions phased in toward 2031. He described county options ranging from public education and medical‑provider outreach to sponsoring research, helping water agencies with sampling and remediation, and more aggressive local regulatory measures as a last resort.

Why it matters: County residents have raised concerns about PFAS contamination in groundwater and drinking wells; water suppliers and the State Water Resources Control Board have already detected PFAS in some local sources. The EPA deadlines and state testing requirements will require water systems and local agencies to plan for monitoring and, in some cases, treatment.

Supervisor Miley, who introduced the item, said he is not advocating legal or regulatory action by the county at this time. "At the moment, I'm not interested in the county taking any legal action, setting up any regulatory framework," he said, but he urged the county to prioritize education, outreach, research and partnerships with water agencies such as Zone 7 and local sanitary districts. Miley recommended convening a PFAS task force to identify public‑education approaches, testing options and possible funding sources before pursuing regulation.

During public comment, a Pleasanton resident who identified herself as Jill said she had blood testing that placed her in the top 5 percent nationally for several PFAS chemicals and urged the county to make testing and information available to parents. Professional hydrogeologist Jim Larriman described a PFAS plume under the Tri‑Valley about "6 miles long and 2 miles wide" and asked whether the county had reviewed Zone 7’s plans to put new production wells in southwest Pleasanton; he recommended spending on treatment that removes PFAS from the groundwater basin rather than adding new wells that could spread contamination.

Dr. Moss responded that primary regulatory authority over new municipal wells and permitting rests with the state Department of Drinking Water and the State Water Resources Control Board, though county environmental health staff can advise and coordinate. He said the county will follow up with environmental health and legal counsel and will add pending state PFAS legislation to the agency's legislative monitoring list.

What the committee directed: Supervisors asked staff to analyze pending state bills and funding opportunities, to prepare options for an education and outreach regimen (including medical‑provider outreach), to explore research sponsorship or public reporting of existing detection data, and to return with recommended next steps in the fall. Officials said coordination with water agencies and existing treatment projects (Zone 7 opened a second PFAS treatment facility in March 2025, staff noted) will be central to any county role.

The committee did not adopt a regulation or make a formal motion to sue or litigate; the prevailing direction from supervisors was to pursue education, legislative monitoring and interagency coordination first, while developing a scope and cost estimate for a PFAS task force and outreach campaign.