What Municipal Leaders Should Know About 1,4-Dioxane in New York Water

Key Highlights

• 1,4-Dioxane, a regulated contaminant, has been detected in several New York State public drinking water systems.

• Municipalities and utilities are not responsible for producing 1,4-dioxane – they are passive recipients from other sources.

• The State of New York has set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 1 part per billion (ppb) for 1,4-dioxane.

• Specialized water treatment solutions are needed to remove 1,4-dioxane.

• Municipalities can explore legal cost recovery options to offset the financial burden of 1,4-dioxane remediation, potentially gaining revenue to support vital projects.

1,4-Dioxane in New York Water: Risks, Regulations, and Funding Options

New York municipalities are being asked to address an ever-growing list of emerging contaminants while managing limited financial resources. One of these water contaminants is 1,4-dioxane, a colorless liquid primarily used as a stabilizer in various industrial applications, such as solvents, greases, waxes, and detergents. It can also form as a byproduct during the manufacturing process of some personal care products. Like PFAS, after decades of use in industrial and consumer products, 1,4-dioxane has been detected widely in groundwater and surface water. Traditional water treatment methods are ineffective for 1,4-dioxane, requiring municipalities to incur additional costs to build, operate, and maintain new treatment plants.

New York municipalities and utilities are not responsible for producing 1,4-dioxane – they are passive recipients from other sources. However, because water providers must comply with drinking water regulations, municipalities often end up paying to clean up the mess that polluting manufacturers created. As a result, many leaders of municipalities affected by 1,4-dioxane are seeking alternative revenue options.

In this article, we will explore how 1,4-dioxane contamination impacts New York municipalities and review available funding to protect local residents from high treatment costs. We will also evaluate the benefits of incorporating litigation into local government funding strategies as a novel revenue source to support 1,4-dioxane mitigation and other important initiatives.

Impact of 1,4-Dioxane Contamination on New York Municipalities

The industrial use of 1,4-dioxane peaked from the 1960s to the 1980s and has since been largely phased out in the United States. However, traces of the chemical can still be found in some household and industrial products. 1,4-dioxane enters the environment when these products are used or disposed of (including through treated wastewater streams). Once the chemical reaches groundwater, it can remain for decades without breaking down. Water quality testing has shown detections in many drinking water sources statewide.

Like many emerging contaminants, 1,4-dioxane was once used widely by consumers who were never warned that it could be dangerous. Now, 1,4-dioxane health effects are better understood: exposure has been linked to liver and nasal tissue damage, and the U.S. EPA has classified it as a likely carcinogen.

1,4-Dioxane Regulatory Landscape

In response to research showing that 1,4-dioxane contamination presents a significant risk to public health, some states have taken steps to limit its concentration in drinking water. The State of New York has set stricter 1,4-dioxane limits than others.

New York State Drinking Water Standards for 1,4-Dioxane

In 2020, the State of New York set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 1 part per billion (1 ppb) for 1,4-dioxane. While other states have health-based guidance levels or draft MCLs, New York is currently the only state with an enforceable drinking water standard for this contaminant. This regulation adds 1,4-dioxane to the long list of contaminants that water providers must monitor and, if needed, treat to ensure compliance.

New York State’s Efforts to Control 1,4-Dioxane Sources

The State of New York has also made efforts to reduce sources of 1,4-dioxane in the environment and in residents' homes through consumer product regulations. In September 2024, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced new rules to specify which products were subject to regulations and how 1,4-dioxane should be quantified. Controlling this contaminant in household cleaning, personal care, and cosmetic products may decrease the amount found in wastewater and landfill leachate, reducing potential contamination sources. However, because 1,4-dioxane groundwater contamination can persist for many years, this regulation is unlikely to resolve all concerns.

Development of U.S. EPA Guidelines

The federal regulatory landscape for 1,4-dioxane is evolving rapidly. In November 2024, the United States EPA released a final risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane, stating that the drinking water contaminant poses an unreasonable risk to the general population. The EPA must now begin risk management, which may include proposed drinking water regulations.

How Can Municipal Leaders Address 1,4-Dioxane?

New York's MCL for 1,4-dioxane has been active since 2020, but compliance challenges remain. Years of pilot testing, reporting, and extensive planning are often needed before implementing solutions. Each municipality's approach to managing 1,4-dioxane will be different, but many will require new and costly water treatment facilities.

1,4-Dioxane Removal from Water: Treatment Methods

Conventional water treatment techniques do not effectively remove 1,4-dioxane. This means municipalities with detections must determine how to remove 1,4-dioxane from drinking water to maintain compliance with New York's MCL. While effective treatment solutions such as advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) are commercially available, they can cost tens of millions of dollars to implement. Unfortunately, the systems many water providers are building to remove PFAS are ineffective for 1,4-dioxane, so municipalities dealing with both PFAS and 1,4-dioxane will have an even larger financial burden. It is also important to keep in mind that the costs do not stop when construction is completed - operation and maintenance costs will continue into the future.

Additionally, because of 1,4-dioxane's rapid mobility in groundwater, its impact is rarely limited to a single water system within a region. If 1,4-dioxane has been detected in one well, it is likely that it has been, or will soon be, found in other nearby wells and systems. This tendency to affect entire regions’ drinking water supplies means that other systems may be working to build similar treatment facilities at the same time. This increase in demand for materials can lead to longer supply lead times and higher costs.

Are Grants & Loans Available for 1,4-Dioxane Mitigation?

The financial burden of mitigating 1,4-dioxane contamination should not fall solely on municipalities and their residents, particularly when the pollution can be traced back to industrial sources. The following grants and loans are traditional funding options that may be available to some New York municipalities:

1. Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation (WIIN) Grants for Small, Underserved, and Disadvantaged Communities: Support for drinking water projects in small, underserved, and disadvantaged communities with barriers to financing projects to comply with drinking water standards.

2. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) Drinking State Revolving Fund (SRF): Low-interest loans may be available as a financial incentive for water treatment infrastructure improvements.

Some New York municipalities have received funds through the grant and loan opportunities listed above, but they generally do not cover all costs associated with 1,4-dioxane mitigation. Additional funding is still needed to avoid passing the financial burden along to taxpayers.

Innovative Funding Solutions: Legal Cost Recovery for Municipalities

Local government leaders always have ideas to tackle issues like 1,4-dioxane contamination, but funding limitations too often stand in the way of making their plans a reality. Successful leaders leverage every available funding source to support key initiatives, often relying on traditional methods such as grants, loans, taxes, and utility rate setting. As evolving water regulations lead to increased costs, leaders are looking for innovative funding strategies for growth and resilience. Recently, many city and county leaders have begun incorporating litigation as an additional revenue stream to fill funding gaps for contamination clean-up. Across the nation, local governments are recouping substantial funds by holding large manufacturers accountable for the impact of harmful contaminants. In a recent example, PFAS manufacturers 3M, DuPont, TYCO, and BASF have agreed to pay a combined amount of nearly $15 billion in settlements to eligible public water providers affected by PFAS contamination. Plus, since water systems that had filed lawsuits before the settlements were announced benefited from litigation bumps increasing their payouts by up to 25%. These funds are helping local governments support vital projects and services. If 1,4-dioxane manufacturers offer similar class action settlements in the future, they may not allow water providers that haven’t filed their own lawsuits to participate. Even if they do, systems that have filed lawsuits may receive litigation bumps like those of the PFAS settlements.

Besides the potential to recover water treatment costs, pursuing litigation demonstrates a commitment to protecting local residents, voters, and taxpayers. Legal action against large manufacturing corporations sends a clear message that no one has the right to pollute public water supplies, no matter how powerful.  

Working with a firm that specializes in environmental law and contamination cost recovery can help municipalities navigate the legal process and ensure that they are pursuing the best options for their unique situation. These firms have experience in managing similar cases and understand their complexities.

Defending Local Residents from Polluting Manufacturers

Municipal leaders who initiate contamination cost recovery lawsuits are often seen as strong defenders of public well-being and taxpayer funds. On the other hand, leaders who do not explore all available funding opportunities for 1,4-dioxane mitigation may be leaving money on the table. With today’s increasing challenges and operational costs, municipalities benefit from thinking outside the box and exploring litigation as a novel funding source for critical projects.

With state regulations already active and federal regulations potentially on the horizon, New York municipalities may face significant costs for treatment and compliance. Leaders can minimize the financial impact of contamination on taxpayers and local budgets by seeking to hold manufacturers accountable for the associated costs. To learn more about SL Environmental Law Group's services for municipalities affected by 1,4-dioxane contamination, read our informational guide.