Should Redmarley Treat for PFAS Now or Wait for the Deadline?

Resolution: The Redmarley town council should begin building PFAS treatment this year rather than waiting for the state grant round.

Background. Redmarley is a fictional town of about 18,000 people. Every figure attributed to it below was written for this debate.

PFAS is a family of manufactured chemicals used for decades in firefighting foam, stain-resistant fabric, and nonstick coatings. They break down very slowly, which is why they turn up in groundwater long after their use has stopped. In April 2024, EPA set national limits for several of them, including PFOA and PFOS. The maximum contaminant level for PFOA and for PFOS is 4.0 parts per trillion each, and water systems must comply by April 2029. In May 2026, EPA proposed letting eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption, to April 2031. It would not be an automatic extension for every system, and the proposal was not yet final as of September 2026. The limit itself would not change. The date for meeting it may, for systems that qualify.

Redmarley draws its water from three wells. In this scenario, the Cordray and Fenn Street wells have tested above 4.0 parts per trillion for PFOA. The third well, at Ashlar Road, has tested below the limit but produces the least water of the three.

The town has two workable plans.

The first plan is to build a granular activated carbon system this year. Carbon vessels remove PFAS as water passes through them, and the carbon has to be replaced and disposed of on a schedule. The town engineer estimates the capital cost at about 6.8 million dollars, with about 400 thousand dollars a year to operate. Paying for it through rates would add roughly 9 dollars a month to the average household bill.

The second plan is to wait about three years. Redmarley would take the Cordray well out of service, blend the other two, and apply to a state grant round that opens in two years. The town would build after the grant decision and after EPA decides whether to finalize the exemption proposal.

National context matters here. Combined water and sewer bills across the country rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024 and about 5.1 percent more in 2025. A widely used rule of thumb, built from two EPA benchmarks, treats combined water and sewer costs above roughly 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden, although EPA has no single official cutoff.

Roles. Divide the class into an affirmative team and a negative team of three speakers each. Speakers one and two present prepared points from the evidence file. Speaker three delivers the rebuttal and may use only points the other team actually made. One student moderates and keeps time. Three students judge and score with the rubric. Judges may ask one clarifying question at the end of each side's case.

Each point names its source. Points marked as illustrative were written for this debate and are not documented facts.

Case for building now:

1. The limit is settled even though the date is not. EPA set the maximum contaminant level for PFOA and PFOS at 4.0 parts per trillion each in April 2024, and the May 2026 proposal would not change that limit; it would only let eligible systems apply for up to two more years. Redmarley will have to treat these wells whichever year its deadline lands. (Sources: EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation; EPA proposed extension rule, May 2026.)
2. Waiting does not lower exposure. EPA set the limits because of health concerns identified in its rulemaking, and every year the town serves water above the limit is a year of exposure it could have prevented. (Source: EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.)
3. Delay has a price of its own. The Redmarley town engineer estimates in this scenario that construction costs would rise by about 1.1 million dollars over three years, which would eat much of any grant the town might win. (Illustrative estimate created for this debate.)
4. Taking a well offline removes the town's margin. A fictional memo from the Redmarley public works director states that with the Cordray well shut, the remaining two wells could not meet a hot August week without restrictions. (Illustrative memo created for this debate.)

Case for waiting:

1. The rule is still in motion. In May 2026, EPA proposed letting eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption that would move their compliance date from April 2029 to April 2031, and the proposal was not yet final as of September 2026. If the proposal is finalized and Redmarley qualifies, the town would have until April 2031. A town that designs and builds while the rule's timing is still being revised risks building the wrong size system at the wrong time. (Sources: EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation; EPA proposed extension rule, May 2026.)
2. Bills are already climbing faster than inflation. Combined water and sewer bills rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024 and about 5.1 percent in 2025, and a widely used rule of thumb built from EPA benchmarks treats combined water and sewer costs above roughly 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden. Adding about 9 dollars a month now falls hardest on households already near that line. (Sources: Bluefield Research rate surveys; EPA affordability guidance.)
3. The grant round is real money. A fictional Redmarley finance officer estimates that the state round opening in two years could cover close to a third of the capital cost. Building this year forfeits that chance entirely. (Illustrative estimate created for this debate.)
4. There is a cheaper interim step. A fictional Redmarley operations plan shows that shutting the Cordray well and blending the other two would bring the served water below the limit through the cooler months, at a small fraction of the cost of building now. (Illustrative plan created for this debate.)